[PRE REVIEW] Sea ice forecasting using the IceNet library

[acocac]

Notebook Pre-Review

Submitting author: @bnubald

Repository: https://github.com/eds-book-gallery/67a1e320-7c47-4ea9-8df8-e868326bc90b

Notebook idea issue: #221

Editor: @annefou Reviewer: @weiji14 @William-gregory

Managing EiC: @acocac

Status

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your notebook to EDS book.

@bnubald if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @).

Editor instructions

Thank you for considering managing the review workflow of a notebook submission to EDS book.

Please find and assign reviewers and start the main review.

[acocac]

Repository report:

The report below counts blank lines, comment lines, and physical lines of source code files using cloc. It was generated according to the latest commit of the main branch from the target repository.

Potential reviewers and authors feel free this info only for informative purposes. We will generate a similar report after the review process.

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 2.00  T=0.46 s (19.5 files/s, 18277.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                             6             22             28            465
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           7743            143
Markdown                         1              2              0              9
JSON                             1              0              0              5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             9             24           7771            622
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[acocac]

👋 @DaniJonesOcean @JessicaS11 @weiji14 - would any of you be willing to review this submission for EDS book? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://edsbook.org/publishing/guidelines/guidelines-reviewers. We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks.

Thanks! 🙏

Title: "Sea ice forecasting using the IceNet library" View the notebook with cell outputs 📄 👈

[weiji14]

I'll be busy over the next couple of weeks until about 18 April (have a conference to prepare for), but can try to review this by around late April if that's ok.

[bnubald]

Thanks @acocac, happy to go with suggested reviewers!

[acocac]

I'll be busy over the next couple of weeks until about 18 April (have a conference to prepare for), but can try to review this by around late April if that's ok.

@weiji14 thanks for indicating your interest and availability. I think late April should be fine. Let's wait for the responses of other potential reviewers. I'll tag you in mid-April in case we require your help on this 🙏

[weiji14]

Can I raise a concern on a potential conflict of interest? @acocac, I see that you as editor are affiliated with the Alan Turing institute, which the IceNet paper seems to have links to (on https://icenet.ai, it says IceNet is developed by BAS and the Alan Turing Institute). May I request the editor-in-chief (also @acocac it seems) to assign a different editor for handling the reviews of this EDS book?

[acocac]

@annefou thanks for confirming your availability to moderate the discussion for this submission, may I ask if you can contact potential reviewers and confirm their availability?

[acocac]

Can I raise a concern on a potential conflict of interest? @acocac, I see that you as editor are affiliated with the Alan Turing institute, which the IceNet paper seems to have links to (on https://icenet.ai, it says IceNet is developed by BAS and the Alan Turing Institute). May I request the editor-in-chief (also @acocac it seems) to assign a different editor for handling the reviews of this EDS book?

@weiji14 thanks for raising the conflict of interest. Following your suggestion and transparency principles indicated in the EDS book FAQ, I've assigned a new editor, @annefou. Please note that the EDS book has a very limited capacity. We're working on recruiting volunteers to the editorial board from the pool of authors or reviewers. Feedback on the guidelines or publishing processes would be welcome!

[DaniJonesOcean]

@acocac and @annefou, I'm happy to serve as a reviewer if it's helpful. I should be able to get this done by late April.

[DaniJonesOcean]

That being said, as @weiji14 has pointed out for others, there may be a conflict of interest here too (I worked with Tom and others at BAS during my time there, and I am a co-author on the IceNet paper). @annefou, please advise :)

[weiji14]

Yes, the Cryosphere community is very 'small' :laughing: But that doesn't excuse us from not declaring any conflicts of interest that might undermine the credibility of the review process. We should set ourselves to a higher standard if we want scientific software libraries and written documentation (like Jupyter Books) to be recognized and taken seriously as credible scientific outputs (but I'm going off on a tangent here).

I will note that I have co-authored a JOSS paper with @JessicaS11, so we shouldn't both review this IceNet library together if following Tier 3: Independent peer review according to EDS's book FAQ.

[annefou]

@weiji14 Thanks for catching that potential conflict of interest (COI) early! It's really important to maintain transparency and trust in our work, so we appreciate your input.

To keep this integral discussion going, would you open a new issue in the EDS book GitHub repo? It would be a perfect space to share thoughts about our process and possible improvements.

We'd also love it if you could start a discussion in the Turing Way resource. Sharing this good practice would be valuable for the whole community.

Just to clarify, we check availability in the PRE-REVIEW stage and confirm COI during REVIEW. We've adopted a similar check-list template of JOSS, so this is an issue that is still present in this journal and others.

[annefou]

@DaniJonesOcean About the potential Conflict of Interest (COI): it seems that the submitted notebook show a derivative work from IceNet (daily forecasting) which, as far as we understand, you were not directly involved in. Plus, the original IceNet paper you co-authored was published about 3 years ago.

Given this, I would like to ask you if you think you would be able to do an impartial assessment of this work and then we could waive the conflict. However, we should just make sure this decision is properly recorded to maintain transparency.

We suggest we align with the COI guidelines outlined by JOSS/JOSE for this. You can check their policy here: JOSS COI Policy.

What do you think?

[annefou]

@bnubald just wanted to check, do you have any potential reviewers in mind who don't carry a conflict of interest? Let us know!

[JessicaS11]

Thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately, I'm not able to review this submission, as I'm currently working on multiple JOSS reviews. @mollymwieringa may be interested in reviewing (or know someone who is).

[annefou]

Based on this thread, discussion/clarification on potential COI, I believe @DaniJonesOcean and @weiji14 could review the notebook. Could you @DaniJonesOcean and @weiji14 confirm that you are happy to conduct the review?

[bnubald]

@bnubald just wanted to check, do you have any potential reviewers in mind who don't carry a conflict of interest? Let us know!

Hi Anne, if COI still an issue, I did get a potential yes from following via an intermediary last week, though I do not have their github handle, just email:

https://research.ibm.com/people/geoffrey-dawson

[bnubald]

@annefou I've reached out to William who's agreed (GitHub profile).

[annefou]

Hi @William-gregory I understand that you would be happy to review this notebook. We would be very grateful if you could confirm?

[William-gregory]

Hi @annefou, yes I'm happy to review this notebook

[acocac]

Closing as all reviewers confirm their availability.