Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: cartoee: Publication quality maps using Earth Engine

[whedon]

Submitting author: @kmarkert (Kel Markert)
Repository: https://github.com/kmarkert/cartoee
Version: 0.0.5
Editor: @lheagy
Reviewer: @Fil
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2552811

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eea2105f42bbab1e49cf26d935837c8"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eea2105f42bbab1e49cf26d935837c8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eea2105f42bbab1e49cf26d935837c8/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/2eea2105f42bbab1e49cf26d935837c8)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@Fil, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @lheagy know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @Fil

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: 0.0.5
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kmarkert) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @Fil it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[lheagy]

👋 Hi @Fil, many thanks for being willing to review! In the main issue commentary above, there is a checklist to help guide your review. If possible, we would appreciate if you could complete your review within the next two weeks. If there is anything I can provide clarification on, please let me know.

[Fil]

I don't believe that there is COI in this case, but just to make sure, let me state that I have been working on a similar tool, written in Javascript and WebGL, on and off for the last few years. You can see an (older) instance of this tool at URL.

@lheagy @KMarkert feel free to revoke me if this sounds (even slightly) annoying. For my part I see this rather as a good way to learn and maybe cooperate in the future.

[EDIT] After a more careful look at @KMarkert's project I don't think my own projects are that close to it. So my point was certainly too cautious.

[Fil]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

[Fil]

@lheagy all checked!

@KMarkert congratulations 🎉

[lheagy]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• http://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
• http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2542609 is OK
• http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[lheagy]

Many thanks @Fil for the speedy review!!

@KMarkert, could you please make a new release and ensure that the title of the zenodo archive is the same as your paper "cartoee: Publication quality maps using Earth Engine" and post the doi here? From there, we can proceed with publication 🎉

[KMarkert]

@Fil Thank you very much for the reviews and helping make the package of higher quality.

@lheagy I have edited the name of the zenodo archive to reflect the name of the paper. Can you please confirm that I did this correctly? Here is the doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552811

[lheagy]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2552811 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2552811 is the archive.

[lheagy]

@whedon set 0.0.5 as version

[whedon]

OK. 0.0.5 is the version.

[lheagy]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[lheagy]

👋 Hi @arfon, this submission is ready for publication! Congrats @KMarkert 🎉

[danielskatz]

Hi @lheagy - We've moved to rotating editors-in-chief, and this week it's me. For the future, please notify @joss-eics when there's a paper ready to go, or to otherwise get the person on-duty...

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/462

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/462, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• http://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
• http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2542609 is OK
• http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[danielskatz]

Thanks for reviewing @Fil and editing @lheagy !

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/463
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01207
3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

   Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[danielskatz]

👋 @arfon - I don't see the paper itself, which should be at https://www.theoj.org/joss-papers/joss.01207/10.21105.joss.01207.pdf
Can you see what might have gone wrong?

[arfon]

Can you see what might have gone wrong?

The paper seems to be there now. Sometimes GitHub pages (where the PDFs are served from) takes longer than a few seconds to update.

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01207/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01207)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01207">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01207/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01207/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01207

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=