[PRE REVIEW]: STITCHES: a Python package to amalgamate existing Earth system model output into new scenario realizations

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @abigailsnyder (Abigail Snyder)
Repository: https://github.com/JGCRI/stitches
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v0.10.0
Editor: @observingClouds
Reviewers: @znicholls, @Zeitsperre
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ad81e6a435c13ae644a7ca8cb0ffbc35"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ad81e6a435c13ae644a7ca8cb0ffbc35/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ad81e6a435c13ae644a7ca8cb0ffbc35/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ad81e6a435c13ae644a7ca8cb0ffbc35)

Author instructions

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

@abigailsnyder 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 @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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (769.4 files/s, 106266.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          23            675            957           1664
Jupyter Notebook                 2              0            786            406
reStructuredText                 5            290            308            260
Markdown                         7             62              0            223
TeX                              1              4              0             52
YAML                             2             10              4             45
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            42           1053           2063           2685
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/esd-2022-14 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157940.001 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016 is OK
- 10.1038/nclimate3310 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 857

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Hi @abigailsnyder and thanks for your submission! Our relevant editors are currently fully occupied so I am going to add the "waitlist" label to this, and I'll work on getting an editor as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.

[kthyng]

Hi @fraukewiese could you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @fraukewiese as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[fraukewiese]

@kthyng : Sorry, I have to decline this one. Due to time constraints and it does not really fit to my expertise.

[kthyng]

@observingClouds Would this submission be a reasonable fit for you?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @observingClouds as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[observingClouds]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @observingClouds is now the editor

[observingClouds]

Hi @kthyng,
I'm happy to be the editor for this submission.

[observingClouds]

@abigailsnyder thank you for your submission! I will be the editor for your submission and will now search for reviewers. If you have any reviewers in mind (e.g. from the JOSS-reviewer list mentioned above), please feel free to mention them here (without tagging them with an @).

[abigailsnyder]

usethedata
koldunovn
eviatarbach
aaronspring
amygalanter
josephhardinee
sarats

Thank you!

[observingClouds]

Hi @abigailsnyder,
I read Tebaldi et al., 2020, which seems to introduce STITCHES for the first time and goes into quite some detail about the performance and possibilities of STITCHES. Because we want to make sure that submissions to JOSS are not a duplication and an additional scholarly effort has been made, I like you to explain in more detail how this submission is distinct from the one published in ESD and which additional value it contains.
Thank you!

[abigailsnyder]

Of course, that makes sense! The ESD paper was focused more on describing and validating the approach to ESM output emulation. It included a pre-release of the core code in the python package for reproducibility, but since the ESD paper, we have updated package data, added the quickstart jupyter notebook and package overview website for more clarity, and added testing to the package.

We froze a branch of the code version used in the ESD paper in addition to logging it on zenodo, so I just went ahead and opened a faux Pull Request as if we were to merge the current main branch into the ESD paper branch so that the file differences are accessible in one spot in case that is useful: https://github.com/JGCRI/stitches/pull/75/files

I'm happy to answer any other questions but hopefully this provides you with enough information to make your assessment of how the work fits into the journal's requirements. Thank you!

[observingClouds]

Thank you for the clarification and mentioning the additional efforts since the publication in ESD.

[observingClouds]

@editorialbot add @znicholls as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@znicholls added to the reviewers list!

[observingClouds]

@editorialbot add @Zeitsperre as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Zeitsperre added to the reviewers list!

[observingClouds]

Thank you @znicholls and @Zeitsperre to agree to review this submission. I will now start the review process which will happen in another GitHub issue.

[observingClouds]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5525.