[REVIEW]: Groundhog - A general-purpose geotechnical Python package

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @snakesonabrain (Bruno Stuyts)
Repository: https://github.com/snakesonabrain/groundhog
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS-paper
Version: v0.15.1
Editor: @rwegener2
Reviewers: @asitha-sena, @odakan
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.17989634

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e77e059dc24b1a14bd1ef1cd3b2ba352"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e77e059dc24b1a14bd1ef1cd3b2ba352/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e77e059dc24b1a14bd1ef1cd3b2ba352/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e77e059dc24b1a14bd1ef1cd3b2ba352)

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

@asitha-sena & @odakan, 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/pre-2026-submission/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @rwegener2 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 @odakan

📝 Checklist for @asitha-sena

[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=0.41 s (460.9 files/s, 156813.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          81           5032           5987          20270
Jupyter Notebook                24              0          27915           1864
CSV                              4              0              0            570
reStructuredText                62            340            253            431
Text                             6             14              0            184
CSS                              1             74            129            146
TeX                              1             11              0            116
Markdown                         2             45              0             88
YAML                             3             11             28             64
JavaScript                       2              0              8             34
Bourne Shell                     1              1              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           187           5528          34320          23769
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   117	Bruno Stuyts
   101	snakesonabrain
    44	pro_found
     3	Berk Demir
     3	apwebber

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 881

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5772/intechopen.1006730 is OK
- 10.3390/geotechnics4020033 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/2265/4/042053 is OK
- 10.3997/2214-4609.202476006 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Soil mechanics and foundations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: matplotlib–A Portable Python Plotting Package
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Plotly Python Open Source Graphing Library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gaps in Globular Cluster Streams: Pal 5 and the Ga...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fidgit: An ungodly union of GitHub and Figshare

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[rwegener2]

👋🏼 @snakesonabrain @asitha-sena @odakan this is the review thread for the paper. 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#REVIEW_NUMBER 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 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@rwegener2) if you have any questions/concerns.

[odakan]

Review checklist for @odakan

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/snakesonabrain/groundhog?
• 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 (@snakesonabrain) 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?

[odakan]

Dear @snakesonabrain,

First, congratulations on this impressive project! The documentation is clear, detailed, and highly educational. Even a preliminary review demonstrates considerable effort and care, well exceeding the journal’s minimum requirement of three months. The educational promise of the project is clearly fulfilled by the documentation and scope.

In the next steps of my review, I plan to clone the repository, install the project, run the provided examples, and carefully review the source code. After this thorough exploration, I will provide more detailed and constructive feedback.

Before proceeding further, I have one question regarding contributor acknowledgment. It's clear that Bruno Stuyts (@snakesonabrain) is the primary contributor, and I note Berk Demir (@berkdemir) is recognized in the paper. However, I also observed contributions from @apwebber and recently @PingGeo, who, if I understand correctly, implemented the CPT tip resistance relations. Could you please clarify the extent and nature of their contributions, and whether their roles might merit acknowledgment in the paper?

Again, thank you for this excellent contribution. I look forward to diving deeper into the code.

Best regards,
Deniz

[asitha-sena]

Review checklist for @asitha-sena

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/snakesonabrain/groundhog?
• 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 (@snakesonabrain) 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?

[asitha-sena]

Hi @rwegener2
I reviewed the COI policy and wanted to let you know that the author was a reviewer for my own JOSS paper a couple of years ago. I hope that is not a problem.