[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: 10.5281/zenodo.13907115 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)?

sabrinaszeto commented 1 month ago

@yabellini Thanks for clarifying! I will add the other two authors to the repo as well. They served in more of an advising capacity to the project, rather than contributing to the code base. I'll get to this early next week.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, 7:28 PM The Open Journals editorial robot < @.***> wrote:

That doesn't look like a valid DOI value

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/197#issuecomment-2405673866, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXDJJNYWE657WE5ANPWTDZ222LDAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVGIH63KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMBVGY3TGOBWGY . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

yabellini commented 1 month ago

I got an answer about the the release:

They should make a tagged release on the version-controlled repository (then update the version with @editorialbot), and the Zenodo archive should reflect that release (i.e., be synced with it)

Please, after you update the readme, then create a release of your repo and then update the Zenodo deposit.

yabellini commented 1 month ago

Hi @sabrinaszeto, I am just checking with you about the status of the tagged release. Thanks!

sabrinaszeto commented 1 month ago

Thanks for checking in! We ran into some issues with our GitLab (probably related to permissions) and are speaking with a colleague about it. Will update you once it's sorted out.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024, 11:59 AM Yanina Bellini Saibene < @.***> wrote:

Hi @sabrinaszeto https://github.com/sabrinaszeto, I am just checking with you about the status of the tagged release. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/197#issuecomment-2441260032, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXDJNVK7F67IRWJ4QL56DZ5YKIPAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVGIH63KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDINBRGI3DAMBTGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

sabrinaszeto commented 3 weeks ago

@yabellini, thanks for your patience! The tagged release is now complete. I have also updated the Zenodo archive.

yabellini commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot set v0.1 as version

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Done! version is now v0.1

yabellini commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13907115 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13907115

yabellini commented 1 week ago

@sabrinaszeto I'm strugling to understand the versioning:

the tag version on GitLab is v0.1
you have two version on Zenodo, v0.1 and v0.2 Which one corresponds to the work on this paper?

@labarba, should the version be the same number in both places? (GitLab and Zenodo) If not, which one should I indicate to the bot here?

Thanks for any guidance on this matter. It is the only step missing to accept this paper.

sabrinaszeto commented 1 week ago

Thanks for reaching out. Zenodo v0.2 equals GitLab v0.1. The issue is we only had one tag on GitLab versus two on Zenodo.

I can also make a second GitLab tag so the version numbers match. Let me know if that would help.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024, 10:35 AM Yanina Bellini Saibene < @.***> wrote:

@sabrinaszeto https://github.com/sabrinaszeto I'm strugling to understand the versioning:

the tag version on GitLab is v0.1

you have two version on Zenodo, v0.1 and v0.2 Which one corresponds to the work on this paper?

@labarba https://github.com/labarba, should the version be the same number in both places? (GitLab and Zenodo) If not, which one should I indicate to the bot here?

Thanks for any guidance on this matter. It is the only step missing to accept this paper.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/197#issuecomment-2482634760, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXDJKWAIF2RQWJALW7ZX32BG7GTAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVGIH63KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIOBSGYZTINZWGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

openjournals / jose-reviews