[REVIEW]: Pythia Foundations: A community learning resource for Python-based computing in the geosciences

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @brian-rose (Brian E. J. Rose)
Repository: https://github.com/ProjectPythia/pythia-foundations
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2025.06.25
Editor: @acocac
Reviewers: @e-marshall, @jatkinson1000
Archive: Pending
Paper kind: learning module

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ad4fe1df16342a33f750b43772c1b15"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ad4fe1df16342a33f750b43772c1b15/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ad4fe1df16342a33f750b43772c1b15/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ad4fe1df16342a33f750b43772c1b15)

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) by leaving comments 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

@e-marshall & @jatkinson1000, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @acocac know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @jatkinson1000

📝 Checklist for @e-marshall

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, 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 1.98  T=0.09 s (800.4 files/s, 209069.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                        36           1148              0           2457
SVG                              8              0              0           2412
Jupyter Notebook                18              0          11870           1314
TeX                              2             24              0            340
YAML                            10             19              8            241
TOML                             2              3              0             16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            76           1194          11878           6780
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    71	Brian Rose
    62	pre-commit-ci[bot]
    52	Julia Kent
    36	dependabot[bot]
    25	Kevin Tyle
    15	Anderson Banihirwe
    10	clyne
     9	Drew Camron
     8	Robert Ford
     6	James Morley
     6	John Clyne
     5	Orhan Eroglu
     4	Kevin Paul
     4	Ryan May
     3	bl-freeman
     3	lkailynncar
     2	Katelyn FitzGerald
     2	Max Grover
     2	anacmontoya
     1	Andrew
     1	Angus Hollands
     1	Chuck Daniels
     1	Damien Irving
     1	Eric Levine
     1	Heather Craker
     1	Himanshu Ahuja
     1	João Martins | Geospatial Data Scientist | MSc Env. Eng
     1	Leonardo Uieda
     1	Nursultan Sagyntay
     1	Ojaybee
     1	Philippe Blain
     1	Pratik Bhandari
     1	Zachary Moon

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 is OK
- 10.1145/3569951.3597559 is OK
- 10.1145/3437359.3465565 is OK
- 10.25080/NKVC9349 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.14805610 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.2561065 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.8316796 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.13694511 is OK
- 10.1109/MSR.2019.00077 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.1182735 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.3509134 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8184298 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.14759276 is OK
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.5361094.v1 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.md is 1589

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[jatkinson1000]

@editorialbot remind me in 14 days

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry @jatkinson1000, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[jatkinson1000]

Review checklist for @jatkinson1000

Conflict of interest

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

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the https://github.com/ProjectPythia/pythia-foundations?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@brian-rose) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[acocac]

@editorialbot remind @jatkinson1000 in 13 days

[editorialbot]

Reminder set for @jatkinson1000 in 13 days

[editorialbot]

👋 @jatkinson1000, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).