[REVIEW]: antimeridian: A Python package for correcting geometries that cross the 180th meridian

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @gadomski (Peter Gadomski)
Repository: https://github.com/gadomski/antimeridian
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.3.12
Editor: @mikemahoney218
Reviewers: @ianturton, @busstoptaktik, @mmann1123
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14335985

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2a6c626b3774c8310e46c05fdf8d10de"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2a6c626b3774c8310e46c05fdf8d10de/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2a6c626b3774c8310e46c05fdf8d10de/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2a6c626b3774c8310e46c05fdf8d10de)

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

@ianturton & @busstoptaktik, 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 @mikemahoney218 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 @ianturton

📝 Checklist for @mmann1123

📝 Checklist for @busstoptaktik

[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 1.90  T=0.06 s (2076.9 files/s, 207321.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                            79              0              0           8921
Python                          13            209            184            991
Markdown                         9            197              0            455
YAML                             7              8              0            190
reStructuredText                 4            108            130            101
TOML                             1              9              0             55
TeX                              1              5              0             47
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Bourne Shell                     1              3              2              9
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           117            551            324          10804
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   157	Pete Gadomski
    58	dependabot[bot]

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.5597138 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5884351 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: RFC 7946: The GeoJSON Format
- No DOI given, and none found for title: International Conference Held at Washington for th...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SpatioTemporal Asset Catalog (STAC) specification
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 683

✅ 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 📄 👈

[mikemahoney218]

👋🏼 @gadomski, @ianturton, @busstoptaktik: this is the review thread for the paper. Just about all of our communications will happen here from now on 😄

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7530 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 4 weeks. Please let me know if you require some more time!

Please feel free to ping me (@mikemahoney218) if you have any questions/concerns.

[ianturton]

Review checklist for @ianturton

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/gadomski/antimeridian?
• 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 (@gadomski) 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?

[ianturton]

I would like to see more details of the differences between the output of this package and GDAL's --wrap-dateline , as this is currently state of the art and potential users may be confused by unexpected differences between the two.

[gadomski]

I've got the ogr2ogr --wrap-dateline output in https://github.com/gadomski/antimeridian/tree/main/tests/data/ogr2ogr, so would just need to write it up into a docs page and then include a snippet in the paper. gadomski/antimeridian#155

[gadomski]

@ianturton added some text to the paper and a companion comparison notebook. Tl;dr: they looks like they produce the same output as long as you tune -wrapdateline with -datelineoffset.

[mikemahoney218]

@editorialbot add @mmann1123 as reviewer

While we can accept papers with two reviews, we always prefer to have three where possible -- so thank you @mmann1123 for agreeing to review this submission as well. Instructions for how to carry out a review are in this comment here:

#7530 (comment)

Thanks again!

[editorialbot]

@mmann1123 added to the reviewers list!

[gadomski]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[mmann1123]

Review checklist for @mmann1123

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/gadomski/antimeridian?
• 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 (@gadomski) 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?

[mmann1123]

I think everything looks good, it was interesting to see the comparison to ogr2ogr --wrap-dateline. Everything seems in order, installs easily, has relevant unit tests, the documentation is unusually good, and the paper is clear.

[ianturton]

I'm happy with everything - @mikemahoney218 is there anything else I need to do?

[mikemahoney218]

Thank you @ianturton (and @mmann1123 !) -- so long as you've checked all the boxes on the checklist, we're good to go. Thank you so much for reviewing for JOSS!

[busstoptaktik]

Review checklist for @busstoptaktik

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/gadomski/antimeridian?
• 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 (@gadomski) 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?

[busstoptaktik]

I fully agree with @mmann1123's characterization in #7530 (comment) - so please hit the publish button!

[mikemahoney218]

@editorialbot post-review checklist

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

[mikemahoney218]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

Huge apologies for the delay on my end, but everything here is looking good to me -- going ahead with recommending acceptance

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.5597138 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5884351 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: RFC 7946: The GeoJSON Format
- No DOI given, and none found for title: International Conference Held at Washington for th...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SpatioTemporal Asset Catalog (STAC) specification
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matp...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[mikemahoney218]

🎉 With everything looking good on my end, it's time for me to hand this back to the EiC for last steps. Thanks @gadomski for the submission, and thank you so much to @ianturton, @busstoptaktik, and @mmann1123 for reviewing!

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/ese-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6283, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[kthyng]

Hi! I'll take over now as Track Associate Editor in Chief to do some final submission editing checks. After these checks are complete, I will publish your submission!

• Are checklists all checked off?
• Check that version was updated and make sure the version from JOSS matches github and Zenodo.
• Check that software archive exists, has been input to JOSS, and title and author list match JOSS paper (or purposefully do not).
• Check paper.

[kthyng]

@gadomski It looks like the DOI you provided is the general DOI for the package, but we should use the DOI specific to the version associated with your JOSS review, which looks like 10.5281/zenodo.14335985.

[kthyng]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.14335985 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.14335985

[kthyng]

@gadomski Please check the capitalization in your references. You can preserve capitalization by placing {} around characters/words in your .bib file. "python" should be capitalized.

[gadomski]

@kthyng no problem ... however, I did copy that text directly from https://scitools.org.uk/cartopy/docs/latest/citation.html#bibtex-entry, which does not capitalize "python"?

[gadomski]

@kthyng done in gadomski/antimeridian#162, do you need a new release or can we publish from main?

[kthyng]

@gadomski Ah that is a good point. I would be fine with either then — I can't think of a better argument for one vs. the other though maybe we have to use their own citation?

Let me know what you want to do and to answer your question, no you don't need to do a new release since we're just changing the paper.

[gadomski]

I have a light preference for following their recommendation, so I've reverted in gadomski/antimeridian@4ec8fa1. I'm 👍🏼 to .

[kthyng]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[kthyng]

Ok all good to go!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Gadomski
  given-names: Peter
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-7217"
- family-names: Hartzell
  given-names: Preston
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8293-3706"
contact:
- family-names: Gadomski
  given-names: Peter
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-7217"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14335985
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Gadomski
    given-names: Peter
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-7217"
  - family-names: Hartzell
    given-names: Preston
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8293-3706"
  date-published: 2025-01-08
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07530
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 105
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7530
  title: "antimeridian: A Python package for correcting geometries that
    cross the 180th meridian"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07530"
  volume: 10
title: "antimeridian: A Python package for correcting geometries that
  cross the 180th meridian"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07530 joss-papers#6312
1. Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07530
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kthyng]

Congratulations on your new publication @gadomski! Many thanks to editor @mikemahoney218 and to reviewers @ianturton, @busstoptaktik, and @mmann1123 for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

Note we have a new tool for reviewers! You can go to https://joss.theoj.org/papers/reviewed_by/@your-github-username to see the JOSS submissions you have reviewed, and you can also copy a badge there with the number of your JOSS reviews.

@gadomski If you'd like to join JOSS as a reviewer, please sign up at https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join!

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following

code snippets

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07530/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07530)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07530">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07530/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07530/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07530

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-open-journals