[REVIEW]: Module on dust aerosol detection, monitoring and forecasting

whedon commented 1 year ago

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

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/52505bf5ea349268151066953d284b0d"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/52505bf5ea349268151066953d284b0d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/52505bf5ea349268151066953d284b0d/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/52505bf5ea349268151066953d284b0d)

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 & @s-m-e, 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 (v0.1)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jwagemann) 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?
[ ] 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)?

Review checklist for @sbanchero

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 (v0.1)?
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jwagemann) 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)?

jwagemann commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

jwagemann commented 2 months ago

Hi @cosimameyer , @RomiNahir and @yabellini , thank you for reviewing our submission and improving our content with your valuable comments. I finally got around to integrate your comments.

I made the following changes:

I fixed the broken links under https://gitlab.eumetsat.int/eumetlab/atmosphere/dust-monitoring/-/blob/main/03_practical_case_study/01_exercise.ipynb
On the Gitlab README as well as the 00_index.ipynb notebook, I added information on usage and community guidelines:
- there is a header How to use the content in which I give detailed explanations on how to use the content either via the Jupyterhub-based platform or how it can be cloned and setup locally
- I also added a Contact & Support section, in which we invite learners to get in touch with the EUMETSAT training team if they have questions, want to report an issue or provide feedback.
regarding the point to integrate more details on how the data can be accessed, I elaborated more in detail on each notebook what data file we downloaded from the respective data system. Some notebooks already had the data access as optional notebook part. For others in which this part cannot be integrated to the notebook, I elaborate in the How to access the data section in detail how we made the data selection. The comment also proposed to mention this more in detail in the paper. I thought about it and it might be too much detail for the overview paper. For this reason, I added these details on the notebooks directly.

I further used the occasion to update the content and make sure that the content is up-to-date.

Hope I was able to address all comments and concerns. Please let me know if you have any further questions. I look forward to seeing this work published.

Best regards, Julia

cosimameyer commented 2 months ago

Thanks so much, @jwagemann! This addresses the points I raised. I am very happy to see these additions and believe they make your submission even more accessible to users who will benefit from the content.

I don't have any additional comments from my side and I'm very happy to see it published! 🎉

jwagemann commented 2 months ago

Thank you @cosimameyer for your valuable inputs and your time reviewing our submission! Highly appreciated.

jwagemann commented 2 months ago

@yabellini Could you advise me on the next steps, now that revisions have been accepted? Thanks.

yabellini commented 2 months ago

@RomiNahir, can you please confirm you are ok with the changes @jwagemann did based on the review recommendations? Thank you!

yabellini commented 4 weeks ago

@RomiNahir confirmed via direct message she agrees with all the changes.

yabellini commented 4 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 4 weeks ago

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

yabellini commented 4 weeks ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 4 weeks ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.4060/cc8071en may be a valid DOI for title: Sand and Dust Storms
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Combating sand and dust storms
- No DOI given, and none found for title: UN Coalition to Combat Sand and Dust Storms
- No DOI given, and none found for title: WMO Airborne Dust Bulletin - September 2022
- No DOI given, and none found for title: WMO issues Airborne Dust Bulletin
- No DOI given, and none found for title: inDust

INVALID DOIs

- None

yabellini commented 4 weeks ago

@jwagemann, thank you for your patience while reviewing your submission. The following steps are:

Please check if any of the references mentioned by the editorial bot in the previous message have a DOI and add them. I understand that for the nature of some of the references, only a link is available.
Please create a Zenodo archive and report the DOI here so we can add it to the submission. Complete the Zenodo deposit with the appropriate metadata (title and author list) to match this paper.

yabellini commented 1 week ago

Hi @jwagemann, this comment is to ask about your progress on the final steps of this submission. Thanks!

openjournals / jose-reviews