[PRE REVIEW]: The Basic Model Interface 2.0: A standard interface for coupling numerical models in the geosciences

[whedon]

Submitting author: @mdpiper (MARK PIPER)
Repository: https://github.com/csdms/bmi
Version: v2.0
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @yangbai90, @teuben
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @mdpiper. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@mdpiper if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.84  T=0.21 s (139.5 files/s, 15882.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reStructuredText                23            723            562           1152
DOS Batch                        1             34              2            227
make                             1             30              6            156
Python                           2             86            187            122
HTML                             2              1              0             14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            29            874            757           1671
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '2280' was gathered on 2020/05/31.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
(no author)                      1          1054              0            6.21
Mark Piper                       4           115            739            5.04
Mike Taves                       1            23             12            0.21
huttone                         21          1296            682           11.66
mcflugen                        53          6189           6849           76.88

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Mark Piper                  113           98.3          1.7                6.19
mcflugen                    282            4.6         36.9               62.77

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #2280 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[danielskatz]

@whedon generate pdf from branch mdpiper/paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch mdpiper/paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

👋 @mdpiper - thanks for your submission - we'll get back to you with a next step shortly

[danielskatz]

Note to editors: this was discussed in openjournals/joss#690 before submission

[danielskatz]

👋 @mdpiper - Thanks for your submission to JOSS. As described in our blog post announcing the reopening of JOSS, we're currently working in a "reduced service mode", limiting the number of papers assigned to any individual editor.

Since reopening JOSS about a little more than a week ago, we've had > 60 papers submitted and as such, yours has been put in our backlog that we will be working through over the coming weeks and months. We also are beginning to bring in new editors to move this process along.

Thanks in advance for your patience!

[kyleniemeyer]

Hey @jedbrown, just wanted to see if you were interested / had the bandwidth to edit this, since you participated in the pre-submission discussion.

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon invite @jedbrown as editor

[whedon]

@jedbrown has been invited to edit this submission.

[jedbrown]

@kyleniemeyer Interested, but as mentioned in email, conflicted according to our policy (same institution).

[kyleniemeyer]

@jedbrown oh, sorry. I missed that. So, I think we have faced this sort of conflict before, and I'm not as concerned about this for an editor, as long as the reviewers do not have similar conflicts.

@openjournals/joss-eics do you agree?

[danielskatz]

Unless there are no other editors who can take this, I would prefer to avoid the conflict

[diehlpk]

I can take this, since I have experience in coupling methods for computational fracture mechanics.

[kyleniemeyer]

Thanks @diehlpk!

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon assign @diehlpk as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @diehlpk

[diehlpk]

@whedon generate pdf from branch mdpiper/paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch mdpiper/paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[diehlpk]

Hi @mdpiper, I am the editor for this submission. I briefly read the paper and have following remarks:

1. There are no references in the Reference section
2. All Bib Tex entries are not resolved

Please have look into these issues.

[mdpiper]

@diehlpk Sorry about that--it's now fixed.

[diehlpk]

@whedon generate pdf from branch mdpiper/paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch mdpiper/paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[mdpiper]

@diehlpk I'd like to suggest Teuben and yangbai90 as reviewers; both are familiar with C, C++, Fortran, and Python.

[teuben]

funny you say. If I do accept (i might, although this is not my field, and this would be my first online review), I ran into this article today, which it now on my reading shelf:

https://abompard.wordpress.com/2020/06/07/reviews-are-hard/

[teuben]

@mdpiper when i read the abstract, the amuse project in astrophysics came to mind. have you heard of this before? https://ascl.net/1107.007 has a reference. Combining legacy (and new) codes via a python hub.

[diehlpk]

Hi Peter (@teuben), would you be interested to serve as a reviewer?

[mdpiper]

@teuben I hadn't seen AMUSE before, but from the examples, it looks similar to what we in the earth surface processes community are doing with pymt. Neat! Thanks for the reference!

[teuben]

and there is another group (in amsterdam?) that has cloned amuse for their field (hydrology?). i remember looking at their link, but they are not as active as amuse it (which still is very active).

[diehlpk]

Hi @yangbai90, would you be interested to review this paper?

[yangbai90]

Hi @diehlpk , I would like to be the reviewer for this paper.

[teuben]

@diehlp do you need one or two reviewers

[diehlpk]

@teuben I need at least two. So I would appreciate if you can become the second reviewer.

[diehlpk]

@yangbai90 Thanks, I will add you soon.

[diehlpk]

@whedon assign @yangbai90 as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @yangbai90 is now a reviewer

[teuben]

@diehlpk sure go ahead, this will be a nice challenge, new field, new method, what could go wrong

[diehlpk]

@whedon add @teuben as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @teuben is now a reviewer

[diehlpk]

@teuben Thanks for volunteering.

[diehlpk]

@mdpiper If you have provided us with the latest version. I will start the review soon.

[mdpiper]

@diehlpk Yes, this is the latest version--thanks!

[diehlpk]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in #2317.