[REVIEW]: DFM Generator v2.2: a new method for simulating the growth of natural fracture networks

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @JointFlow (Michael Welch)
Repository: https://github.com/JointFlow/DFMGenerator
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.2.2
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @mohd-afeef-badri, @iammix, @DaveHealy-github
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/32db13931bcebe707f05aeb1b394dfb0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/32db13931bcebe707f05aeb1b394dfb0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/32db13931bcebe707f05aeb1b394dfb0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/32db13931bcebe707f05aeb1b394dfb0)

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

@CBenghi, 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://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @diehlpk 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 @iammix

📝 Checklist for @mohd-afeef-badri

[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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1029/jb089ib06p04077 is OK
- 10.1088/0959-5309/58/6/312 is OK
- 10.1016/0020-7225(65)90028-5 is OK
- 10.1029/jb089ib06p04137 is OK
- 10.1144/petgeo2018-161 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-52414-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 0.1098/rsta.1921.0006 is INVALID

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.83 s (64.1 files/s, 340826.0 lines/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                          files          blank        comment           code
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                                  1            400           4463         221510
C#                                   30           3276          12796          28948
XML                                  13             33            144           5552
C# Designer                           1              7            852           2959
MSBuild script                        3              0             23            364
Markdown                              2             68              0            135
TeX                                   1              6              0             57
Visual Studio Solution                1              1              1             45
YAML                                  1              1              4             18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                 53           3792          18283         259588
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    99	michael-welch00
    53	JointFlow
     2	Mikael Lüthje
     2	Simon Oldfield
     1	Mikael Luthje
     1	joint
     1	mend-bolt-for-github[bot]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 937

✅ 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 📄 👈

[diehlpk]

@iammix the review will happen in this thread

[diehlpk]

@CBenghi how is your review going?

[iammix]

@diehlpk Just a heads-up, I plan to complete my review by the end of this week.

[iammix]

Review checklist for @iammix

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/JointFlow/DFMGenerator?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@JointFlow) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• 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

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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[iammix]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[diehlpk]

Hi @CBenghi I have not heard from you for a while. Can you still do the review? If I do not hear back in one week, I will remove you as a reviewer.

[mohd-afeef-badri]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[mohd-afeef-badri]

Review checklist for @mohd-afeef-badri

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/JointFlow/DFMGenerator?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@JointFlow) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• 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

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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[diehlpk]

@editorialbot remove @CBenghi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@CBenghi removed from the reviewers list!

[diehlpk]

HI @mohd-afeef-badri, @iammix, @DaveHealy-github how is your review going?

[diehlpk]

HI @mohd-afeef-badri, @iammix, @DaveHealy-github how is your review going?

[diehlpk]

Hi @iammix how is your review going?

[diehlpk]

Hi @mohd-afeef-badri how is your review going?

[diehlpk]

Hi @DaveHealy-github how is your review going?

[diehlpk]

Hi @JointFlow if I do not hear back from the reviewers by next week, I will look for new reviewers.