openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6797
The manuscript describes the RSWAT package, as a tool to work different versions of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). While the manuscript adequately introduces the tool, I have some general comments:
First, the contribution of the package is not very clear for me. The manuscript says the package basically replicates the R-SWAT shiny app, but allowing to work without the Graphical User Interface. The other overcome limitations mentioned on the paper seem to be minor too, so I wonder why R-SWAT and RSWAT could not be merged into a single and more complete package. Indeed, the documentation says that RSWAT is an update of the older version “The older version of this package, called the R-SWAT app”.
Anyway, if there are reasons to have them as separate packages, these should be more clearly stated in the paper. In addition, I believe the subsection “Features” could be merged into the statement of need, to clarify the innovative features of the package.
In this line, I would create a new subsection (“Functionality” or similar) that shows some code examples and some potential outputs (e.g. a figure), in line with other manuscripts in JOSS. This is, in my opinion, helpful for the users to better understand the package.
I have also some specific comments:
- L7: The first sentence is repetitive, and should be modified to better introduce the topic
- L10: “A model-specific tool” sounds confusing
- L19: “developed since its development”
- L21: “To solve new challenges”. Could you provide an example?
- L23: Minor
- L23-24: Could you elaborate more on these changes?
- L41: As said, these limitations could be solved within the R-SWAT package by, for example, using Docker containers to eliminate package dependencies, or documenting the functions within the R-SWAT documentation site.
- L55: Not sure if this text requires its own subsection or could be merged with the previous one
openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6797
The manuscript describes the RSWAT package, as a tool to work different versions of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). While the manuscript adequately introduces the tool, I have some general comments:
First, the contribution of the package is not very clear for me. The manuscript says the package basically replicates the R-SWAT shiny app, but allowing to work without the Graphical User Interface. The other overcome limitations mentioned on the paper seem to be minor too, so I wonder why R-SWAT and RSWAT could not be merged into a single and more complete package. Indeed, the documentation says that RSWAT is an update of the older version “The older version of this package, called the R-SWAT app”.
Anyway, if there are reasons to have them as separate packages, these should be more clearly stated in the paper. In addition, I believe the subsection “Features” could be merged into the statement of need, to clarify the innovative features of the package.
In this line, I would create a new subsection (“Functionality” or similar) that shows some code examples and some potential outputs (e.g. a figure), in line with other manuscripts in JOSS. This is, in my opinion, helpful for the users to better understand the package.
I have also some specific comments: