@labarba There's not a conflict, but we're piloting a system where authors go through our review process, and on acceptance we submit their package to JOSS, and editors have the option of accepting based on rOpenSci's reviews rather than re-reviewing.

from joss-reviews.

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

from joss-reviews.

@arfon I have decided to submit to ropensci as well. @noamross suggests to pause this review and wait for the one from ropensci. Would that be possible?

from joss-reviews.

rOpenSci is not a journal. I'm not sure there is a conflict ...

from joss-reviews.

@arfon I have decided to submit to ropensci as well. @noamross suggests to pause this review and wait for the one from ropensci. Would that be possible?

Yep it's OK to pause.

rOpenSci is not a journal. I'm not sure there is a conflict ...

@labarba - this is something @noamross, @karthik and myself have been piloting. This review process is heavily based on the rOpenSci review process so JOSS reviews can go much faster if a package has already been through the rOpenSci review process.

from joss-reviews.

This package has been reviewed and accepted by rOpenSci. See the review thread here: ropensci/software-review#73 .

Note that, with repository transfer since the initial submission, the new repository URL is https://github.com/ropensci/hddtools . The current version is v0.5.0 and Zenodo DOI is http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.247842

from joss-reviews.

This package has been reviewed and accepted by rOpenSci. See the review thread here: ropensci/software-review#73 .

👍 excellent, thanks @noamross. I'll proceed with accepting this submission now.

from joss-reviews.

@cvitolo your paper is now accepted into JOSS. Your paper DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00056 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

from joss-reviews.

Dear Claudia,
In Clark et al (2008) it was mentioned that 79 plausible model structures were constructed, however in your latest and previous tutorials using R states between 1 and 1248 (model identification number). Is there any upgradation of FUSE already?

I have been able run your latest tutorial successfully using R 3.2.5, but not working with R 3.3.3 due to some packages not available in the latest version. For now it is fine with R 3.2.5 version.

Could you suggest me some more mids apart from mids = 60(TOPMODEL), 230 (ARNOX/VIC), 343(PRMS) and 426(SACRAMENTO). along with their names, say 9 in all. I need 9 plausible model structures for my analysis.

How would one change the coding in R when we have to handle 9 model structures? I have copied snippet from your code.

bestModel <- function(runNumber){

if (runNumber < (numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "TOPMODEL"

if (runNumber > (numberOfRuns + 1) &
runNumber < (2*numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "ARNOXVIC"

if (runNumber > (2numberOfRuns + 1) &
runNumber < (3numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "PRMS"

if (runNumber > (3numberOfRuns + 1) &
runNumber < (4numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "SACRAMENTO"
if (runNumber > (4numberOfRuns +1) & runNumber < (5numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "Another model"

Does the above code correct if I have 5 model structures for my analysis?

return(myBestModel)

}

Which model structure is being calibrated using hydromad?

Looking forward to your response in anticipation.

Thanking you.

Regards,

Surajit

from joss-reviews.

This was tested according to https://cvitolo.github.io/fuse/articles/fuse_vignette.html.

from joss-reviews.

Sorry Claudia,
The snippet of the code is :

bestModel <- function(runNumber){

if (runNumber < (numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "TOPMODEL"

if (runNumber > (numberOfRuns + 1) &
runNumber < (2*numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "ARNOXVIC"

if (runNumber > (2numberOfRuns + 1) &
runNumber < (3numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "PRMS"

if (runNumber > (3numberOfRuns + 1) &
runNumber < (4numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "SACRAMENTO"
if (runNumber > (4numberOfRuns +1) & runNumber < (5numberOfRuns + 1)) myBestModel <- "Another model"

return(myBestModel)

}

Does the above code correct if I have 5 model structures for my analysis?

asterisk symbol is missing before numberOfRuns after being posted

Thanking you.

Regards,

Surajit

from joss-reviews.