[PRE REVIEW]: idf-analysis: Heavy rainfall intensity as a function of duration and return period

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @MarkusPic (Markus Pichler)
Repository: https://github.com/MarkusPic/intensity_duration_frequency_analysis
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v0.3
Editor: @cheginit
Reviewers: @einaraz
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e50c1f87eff69a0d0a0de3b0910026d1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e50c1f87eff69a0d0a0de3b0910026d1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e50c1f87eff69a0d0a0de3b0910026d1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e50c1f87eff69a0d0a0de3b0910026d1)

Author instructions

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

@MarkusPic 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

- 10.5281/zenodo.13896180 is OK
- 10.3390/w14223705 is OK
- 10.3390/w12051243 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Starkregen in Abhängigkeit von Wiederkehrzeit und ...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/springerreference_65082 may be a valid DOI for title: IDF

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (894.6 files/s, 244806.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                 5              0           2630           3786
Python                          23            926           1043           2177
CSV                              2              0              0           1381
Markdown                         6            530              0            729
YAML                             6             13             47            133
TOML                             1             10              4             59
TeX                              1              4              0             52
reStructuredText                 3             26             38             32
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              6              9
Bourne Shell                     1              3              1              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            50           1524           3770           8389
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   161	Markus Pichler
    43	Markus
    32	markus
    18	Markus P
    15	MarkusPic
     6	github-actions
     1	The Gitter Badger

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 692

✅ 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:

diyepw: A Python package for Do-It-Yourself EnergyPlus weather file generation
Submitting author: @amandadsmith
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Retired)
Reviewers: @samuelduchesne, @fneum
Similarity score: 0.6942

riversCentralAsia: An R package to support data pre- and postprocessing for hydrological modelling with RS MINERVE
Submitting author: @mabesa
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @mengqi-z, @tonyewong
Similarity score: 0.6758

MetObs - a Python toolkit for using non-traditional meteorological observations
Submitting author: @vergauwenthomas
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @Zeitsperre
Similarity score: 0.6735

RESOURCECODE: A Python package for statistical analysis of sea-state hindcast data
Submitting author: @NRaillard
Handling editor: @marcosvital (Active)
Reviewers: @krober10nd, @platipodium, @malmans2
Similarity score: 0.6722

NeuralHydrology --- A Python library for Deep Learning research in hydrology
Submitting author: @kratzert
Handling editor: @elbeejay (Active)
Reviewers: @ammilten, @chuckaustin, @jhamman
Similarity score: 0.6679

⚠️ 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 @MarkusPic 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]

@MarkusPic 👋

• How would a user test your software or otherwise verify after installation or making changes that it is running correctly?

[MarkusPic]

Users can verify the correct functionality of the software by running the example provided in the repository’s examples folder. This example is a Jupyter Notebook that demonstrates the use of the software with open rainfall monitoring data from a station in Graz, Austria, provided by the Austrian government.

The notebook includes step-by-step usage instructions, interim parameters, and plots of results, allowing users to compare their outputs with the expected outcomes. Users often test the package by reproducing this example, as it provides a clear and practical way to check whether the software is working as intended.

While this example serves as a practical testing method, I acknowledge that it does not replace proper unit testing practices. However, it has proven helpful for users to verify installation and functionality.

[kthyng]

@MarkusPic Ok thank you. Your example notebooks would also be great additions to your docs, just a suggestion.

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

[MarkusPic]

Thank you for your feedback. It actually is part of the docs: https://markuspic.github.io/intensity_duration_frequency_analysis/examples/example_python_api.html

[kthyng]

@MarkusPic Excellent! Thanks for pointing that out.

[kthyng]

@cheginit Could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[cheginit]

@kthyng Yes, I can edit this.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot assign @cheginit as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @cheginit is now the editor

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @MarkusPic, Thank you for your submission; I will be serving as your editor. To facilitate the review process, please provide the GitHub handles of five potential reviewers without using the "@" symbol to avoid premature pinging. In addition to colleagues you may know, you can search for suitable reviewers in the [JOSS reviewer database](https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers).

[MarkusPic]

Hi, thank you for editing. Here are five suggestions:

carbform, einaraz, igarousi, raoulcollenteur, AtrCheema, RBhupi

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @igarousi, @einaraz and @raoulcollenteur, 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.

[einaraz]

Hi @cheginit, thank you for the invitation. Yes, I would be happy to be a reviewer for this project!

[cheginit]

@einaraz, thanks for agreeing to review this submission! Once I find other reviewers, I will open a new issue and ping you with instructions for the review process.

[cheginit]

@editorialbot add @einaraz as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@einaraz added to the reviewers list!

[cheginit]

👋🏼 @shulele and @RBhupi, 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.