[PRE REVIEW]: EPyT-Flow: A Toolkit for Generating Water Distribution Network Data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @andreArtelt (André Artelt)
Repository: https://github.com/WaterFutures/EPyT-Flow
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): dev
Version: v0.6.0
Editor: @cheginit
Reviewers: @meghnathomas, @kbonney
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/67698510d41ec5e932d1f15dc3c6f5ea)

Author instructions

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

@andreArtelt if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

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

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/J.PROENG.2015.08.924 is OK
- 10.21105/JOSS.05139 is OK
- 10.1021/es072011z is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05947 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.831493 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.022 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: EPANET 2: users manual
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The EPANET Open Source Initiative

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.33 s (630.1 files/s, 265118.6 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                             files          blank        comment           code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                                       43           4739           9345          22649
Python                                  87           3460          25686           9148
C/C++ Header                            23            908           1862           2748
reStructuredText                        25            640            793           1025
Markdown                                 4            112              0            336
Jupyter Notebook                        14              0           2500            334
Windows Module Definition                1              1              0            130
TeX                                      1              8              0             82
YAML                                     3              6              3             58
TOML                                     1              4              0             36
DOS Batch                                1              8              1             26
make                                     1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                             2              0              0              8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                   206           9890          40197          36589
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   408	André Artelt
    33	Marios S. Kyriakou
     2	Stelios G. Vrachimis

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1232

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

VisWaterNet: A Python package for visualization of water distribution networks
Submitting author: @meghnathomas
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @erexer, @thurber
Similarity score: 0.7571

flowTorch - a Python library for analysis and reduced-order modeling of fluid flows
Submitting author: @AndreWeiner
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @akaptano, @JaroslavHron, @salrm8, @hkjeldsberg
Similarity score: 0.7431

pyflowline: a mesh-independent river network generator for hydrologic models
Submitting author: @changliao1025
Handling editor: @observingClouds (Active)
Reviewers: @smchartrand, @andres-patrignani
Similarity score: 0.7144

NeuralHydrology --- A Python library for Deep Learning research in hydrology
Submitting author: @kratzert
Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active)
Reviewers: @ammilten, @chuckaustin, @jhamman
Similarity score: 0.7117

statemodify: a Python framework to facilitate accessible exploratory modeling for discovering drought vulnerabilities
Submitting author: @rg727
Handling editor: @cheginit (Active)
Reviewers: @barneydobson, @ekblad
Similarity score: 0.7046

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kthyng]

Hi @andreArtelt and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:

• OSI-approved license
• Installation instructions
• Documentation exists at all
• Tests of some sort
• Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• Substantial scholarly effort
• Clear research application

In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.

[kthyng]

We have a backlog of submissions so I will add this to our waitlist. Thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

@cheginit Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[cheginit]

@kthyng Yes, I can.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot add @cheginit as editor

@cheginit you can run this command yourself

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[cheginit]

@kthyng I see, thanks!

[cheginit]

@andreArtelt, please give a list of potential reviewers. Do not include @ when providing their GitHub handles so they don't get pinged prematurely.

[andreArtelt]

Here a list of potential reviewers -- name and GitHub user name:

• Meghna Thomas (meghnathomas)
• Katherine Klise (kaklise)
• David Hart (dbhart)
• Tyler Trimble (tylertrimble)
• Lu Xing (glorialulu)
• Kirk Bonney (kbonney)

Best wishes,
André

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @meghnathomas, @kaklise, and @glorialulu, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[meghnathomas]

Hi @cheginit yes I would be happy to.

[abhishektiwari]

@cheginit I would not mind to be an additional reviewer on this submission. Feel free to add me as reviewer.

[cheginit]

@@meghnathomas Thanks for agreeing to review this submission, I will soon open a new issue with instructions for the review process.

@editorialbot add @meghnathomas as reviewer

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @meghnathomas as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@meghnathomas added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@abhishektiwari Thanks for your offer, appreciate it. I will let you know.

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @kbonney, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

[kbonney]

👋🏼 @kbonney, Would you like to review this submission to the Journal for Open Source Software? Our reviews are checklist-driven and openly conducted on GitHub over a timeline of 4–6 weeks. Because the process is much more iterative and interactive than a traditional paper review, we would ask you to start within the next 2 weeks. Here are reviewer guidelines for reference: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Thanks for your consideration.

Hi @cheginit, I am interested in reviewing the submission. However, for full transparency I am developer of WNTR, which is a similar software to EPyT-Flow. Please let me know if this counts as a COI or not.

[cheginit]

@kbonney Thanks for your prompt response. That's actually positive, since your expertise leads to a thorough review of the submission.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @kbonney as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@kbonney added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7104.

[kaklise]

@cheginit Thanks for the invite, I won't be able to provide a review at this time.