[REVIEW]: FANGS - Fire Applications with Next-Generation Satellites

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@sabrinaszeto@yabellini<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @RomiNahir, @csaybar Archive: Pending Paper kind: learning module

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec)

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

@RomiNahir, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @yabellini 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 ✨

Review checklist for @RomiNahir

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (1.0)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@sabrinaszeto) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
[x] Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

[x] Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
[x] Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
[x] Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
[x] Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
[x] Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[x] Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
[x] Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
[x] Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
[x] Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

whedon commented 1 year ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @RomiNahir it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1161

whedon commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

whedon commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41598-017-00116-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7463073 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 1 year ago

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.66 s (45.3 files/s, 86161.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                25              0          54330           2258
Markdown                         2             73              0            197
Python                           1             18             49             80
YAML                             1              0              0             48
TeX                              1              3              0             39
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            30             94          54379           2622
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '22eda3c7100ed08b3870db2a' was
gathered on 2023/02/23.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Sabrina Szeto                   24         19681          19392           99.97
jwagemann                        1             9              4            0.03

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Sabrina Szeto               294            1.5          0.0               14.29

yabellini commented 1 year ago

@whedon add @andrewmaclachlan as reviewer

whedon commented 1 year ago

OK, @andrewmaclachlan is now a reviewer

yabellini commented 1 year ago

@andrewmaclachlan and @RomiNahir you can start the review on this issue. Here is the Review criteria https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/review_criteria.html and the review checklist https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/review_checklist.html

Please, let me know if you have any questions.

yabellini commented 1 year ago

Hi @andrewmaclachlan and @RomiNahir, checking how everything is going with this review. Is it anything I can o to help?

whedon commented 1 year ago

:wave: @RomiNahir, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

RomiNahir commented 1 year ago

This article shows a training course of Python-base fire satellite detection. The objectives and instructions are clear as the step by step is easy to reproduce. The content is correct for users who have knowledge in Python and satellite images. It shows an example of success training last year. I will recommend this article because it is a well documented example of satellite training.

yabellini commented 1 year ago

Hi @andrewmaclachlan, since we have not hard from you in several weeks, we are now looking for a new reviewer. Thank you for your original willingness to contribute a review.

yabellini commented 1 year ago

@whedon remove @andrewmaclachlan as reviewer

whedon commented 1 year ago

OK, @andrewmaclachlan is no longer a reviewer

yabellini commented 1 year ago

One person I contacted is interested in doing the review but can't do it during the (north) summer. I will be trying to find a second reviewer before. If I fail, I will go back to this person.

sabrinaszeto commented 1 year ago

Thank you for the update, Yanina!

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023, 1:07 AM Yanina Bellini Saibene < @.***> wrote:

One person I contacted is interested in doing the review but can't do it during the summer. I will be trying to find a second reviewer before. If I fail, I will go back to this person.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/197#issuecomment-1624415812, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXDJK6S4QSJHCJOZ52YLTXO5ALBANCNFSM6AAAAAAVGIH63I . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

sabrinaszeto commented 10 months ago

Hi @yabellini, just checking in on the review process. Do let me know if you need anything from me.

yabellini commented 9 months ago

Hi @sabrinaszeto looking for the second review. So sorry is taking so long.

yabellini commented 8 months ago

I have two no answers for potential reviewers. Still looking.

yabellini commented 3 months ago

Hi @ntmoore, you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission.

ntmoore commented 3 months ago

Apologies, I am not able to review this project.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 6:23 AM Yanina Bellini Saibene < @.***> wrote:

Hi @ntmoore https://github.com/ntmoore, you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/197#issuecomment-2186341900, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACDYZOQHL4F6TUBXQU23IWLZI76TTAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVGIH63KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBWGM2DCOJQGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

yabellini commented 3 months ago

Thanks for your quick answer @ntmoore 🙏. @leouieda, you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission.

leouieda commented 3 months ago

Hi @yabellini thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, this is well beyond my limited remote sensing knowledge. I'd recommend Leah Wasser as a possible reviewer (she may also be able to recommend someone with a better fit).

yabellini commented 3 months ago

Thank you, @leouieda, for your answer and the suggestion. 🙏 I know Leah is very busy right now with all pyOpenSci and other work, but I can ask her for suggestions.

yabellini commented 3 months ago

Hi @lheagy you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission.

yabellini commented 2 months ago

Hi, @ThomasA, you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission.

yabellini commented 1 month ago

Hi, @kyleniemeyer, you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission. This work already has one review. Thank you!

yabellini commented 1 month ago

Hi, @kyleniemeyer, you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission. This work already has one review. Thank you!

Thanks for letting me know you are an editor here. We will continue looking for reviewers. 😸

yabellini commented 1 month ago

Hi, @IanHawke , you volunteered to be a reviewer for JOSE. We would like to know if you are willing to review this submission. Thank you!

yabellini commented 5 days ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 5 days ago

Hello @yabellini, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set jose-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

yabellini commented 5 days ago

@editorialbot add @csaybar as reviewer

editorialbot commented 5 days ago

@csaybar added to the reviewers list!

yabellini commented 5 days ago

Hello @csaybar, thank you so much for agreeing to review this proposal 🙏 .

I added you as a reviewer. You can generate your checklist by calling our bot:

@ editorialbot generate my checklist

csaybar commented 3 days ago

Review checklist for @csaybar

Conflict of interest

[ ] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
[ ] Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (1.0)?
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@sabrinaszeto) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
[ ] Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

[ ] Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
[ ] Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
[ ] Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
[ ] Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
[ ] Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

[ ] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
[ ] Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
[ ] Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
[ ] Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
[ ] Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

yabellini commented 3 days ago

@csaybar I saw the check list and that is for JOSS not for JOSE. I will try to fix that.

csaybar commented 3 days ago

Ok! I'll give my review during the next week.

yabellini commented 3 days ago

@csaybar I updated the checklist and fixed the issue, so now the bot should always answer with the data for JOSE. Thank you!

openjournals / jose-reviews