Joss-reviews: [PRE REVIEW]: Museo ToolBox : a python library for remote sensing including a new way to handle rasters.

[whedon]

Submitting author: @nkarasiak (Nicolas Karasiak)
Repository: https://github.com/nkarasiak/MuseoToolBox
Version: v0.12
Editor: @kbarnhart
Reviewers: @cmillion, @mollenburger

Author instructions

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

@nkarasiak 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.

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.

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

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience :smile_cat:

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.3390/rs11212512 is OK
• 10.1111/ecog.02881 is OK
• 10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[whedon]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @kbarnhart, sorry for two requests today, but could you edit this one as well? With the focus on remote observations I thought it might be in your wheelhouse.

[nkarasiak]

@whedon set v0.12 as version

Hi, just to inform you that to respect semantic versioning I changed how I named my version. So the current version to review is now v0.12.
Kind regards,
Nicolas.

[whedon]

I'm sorry @nkarasiak, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[kbarnhart]

@kyleniemeyer I can handle this one.

[kbarnhart]

@whedon assign @kbarnhart as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @kbarnhart

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon set v0.12 as version

[whedon]

OK. v0.12 is the version.

[nkarasiak]

Hello,
Here is a list of the three potential reviewers I identified (found in the list of potential reviewers):

• MES1605 (satellite images and classification)
• cmillion (image processing & python)
• OopsAllErrors (remote sensing & image processing)

Kind regards,
Nicolas Karasiak.

[kbarnhart]

Thanks for the recommendations @nkarasiak

:wave: @cmillion, @OopsAllErrors, would either of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

This is a pre-review issue that I use to coordinate reviewers. Once there are sufficient reviewers (usually 2-3), I will open a new issue where the review will take place.

If you are not able, please let me know if you have recommendations for other reviewers.

[cmillion]

Yes.

[kbarnhart]

@whedon assign @cmillion as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @cmillion

[cmillion]

I recommend @mollenburger as an additional reviewer.

[kbarnhart]

Thanks for the recommendation @cmillion

:wave: @mollenburger would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

This is a pre-review issue that I use to coordinate reviewers. Once there are sufficient reviewers (usually 2-3), I will open a new issue where the review will take place.

If you are not able, please let me know if you have recommendations for other reviewers.

[mollenburger]

@kbarnhart sure, I can review this

[kbarnhart]

@whedon add @mollenburger as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @mollenburger is now a reviewer

[kbarnhart]

:wave: @OopsAllErrors, would you be willing to review this? If not, might you have any recommendations?

[kbarnhart]

@whedon start review

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1978. Feel free to close this issue now!

[kbarnhart]

I'm going to transition this submission from pre-review to review with two reviewers.

Thanks all for your enthusiasm for finding and recommending reviewers. I've started the formal review over at #1978.

For those of you who are not yet listed on our list of potential reviewers for future submissions, please consider filling out the 1-minute form at this link. This helps editors and authors find appropriate reviewers.