[PRE REVIEW]: The University of Toronto Climate Downscaling Workflow: Tools and Resources for Climate Change Impact Analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mikemorris12<!--end-author-handle-- (Michael Morris) Repository: https://github.com/mikemorris12/UTCDW_Guidebook/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSE-submission Version: v1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@acocac<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @aulemahal, @brian-rose Managing EiC: Lorena Barba

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @mikemorris12. Currently, there isn't a JOSE editor assigned to your paper.

@mikemorris12 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.66 s (355.7 files/s, 253590.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            40           6325            283          25875
JavaScript                      21           4573           4489          16561
Jupyter Notebook                79              0          84582          15583
CSS                             12            811            115           2904
PO File                         45           1007              0           2284
YAML                             5              8              6            834
TeX                              2             35              0            528
Markdown                        25            313              0            441
Python                           2            119            281            250
SVG                              5              0              1             29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           236          13191          89757          65289
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00754.1 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-20-1483-2016 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108601269 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00100 is OK
- 10.1017/9781107588783 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1254

[labarba]

@mikemorris12 👋 Let me start with an apology: I am the editor-in-chief and I have neglected JOSE for several months due to plain overwhelm. I have cut down on other service and am back here with intention of reviving our little alt-journal. Thank you for your submission! Given the time that has passed, do you have updates to the paper?

[editorialbot]

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

[mikemorris12]

@mikemorris12 👋 Let me start with an apology: I am the editor-in-chief and I have neglected JOSE for several months due to plain overwhelm. I have cut down on other service and am back here with intention of reviving our little alt-journal. Thank you for your submission! Given the time that has passed, do you have updates to the paper?

Hi @labarba, thanks for considering our submission. There are indeed a few minor changes to the UTCDW-Guidebook repo that have been made since initial submission. The changes are only minor typo fixes, nothing particularly substantive regarding the content and no changes to paper.md. I've just now merged the changes from the main branch into the JOSE-Submission branch, I hope that's ok!

[labarba]

@editorialbot invite @acocac as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[mikemorris12]

Hi @acocac, looking forward to hearing your thoughts on our work. My coauthors and I would like to suggest the following people as potential reviewers:

• Brian Rose, from the Department of Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences at SUNY Albany.
• Pascal Bourgault, Emilie Bresson, or Travis Logan from Ouranos.
• Kevin Schwarzchild, from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
• James Rising, from the School of Marine Science & Policy at the University of Delaware.

Thanks again for considering our submission to JOSE.

[acocac]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @acocac, 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

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

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# 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 set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

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

# 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

[acocac]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.60 s (397.9 files/s, 283090.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            40           6215            246          25723
JavaScript                      21           4573           4489          16561
Jupyter Notebook                80              0          85040          15823
CSS                             12            809            115           2904
PO File                         45           1007              0           2284
YAML                             5              8              6            834
TeX                              2             35              0            528
Markdown                        25            313              0            441
Python                           2            119            281            250
SVG                              5              0              1             29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           237          13079          90178          65377
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1254

[acocac]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00754.1 is OK
- 10.5194/hess-20-1483-2016 is OK
- 10.1017/9781108601269 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00100 is OK
- 10.1017/9781107588783 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[acocac]

Hi @mikemorris12, thanks for submitting. I went through the resource and draft of the paper. I understand the novelty of the resource and endorse the use of scalable scientific python ecosystem e..g Pangeo.

Before passing this to reviewers, I suggest some improvements in the submitted paper according to the guidelines for authors:

Wordcount for paper.md is 1254

• The expected length is around 1000 words max. Please consider to rephrase or remove some sentences from the article.

• The paper would benefit to add a short text with the instructional design and the experience of use in teaching. The latter is briefly mentioned in the Acknowledge section.

Please feel free to consider above suggestions, in particular to adhere to the suggested length for JOSE papers.

[acocac]

Hi @acocac, looking forward to hearing your thoughts on our work. My coauthors and I would like to suggest the following people as potential reviewers:

• Brian Rose, from the Department of Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences at SUNY Albany.
• Pascal Bourgault, Emilie Bresson, or Travis Logan from Ouranos.
• Kevin Schwarzchild, from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
• James Rising, from the School of Marine Science & Policy at the University of Delaware.

Thanks again for considering our submission to JOSE.

Re the suggested reviewers, I've only found GitHub handles for Brian Rose, Pascal Bourgault and James Rising. According to your approval, I'll contact them after you address my initial observations of the submission.

[acocac]

@editorialbot assign @acocac as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @acocac is now the editor

[acocac]

@mikemorris12 I wondered if you've read my messages above. I suggest implementing above suggestions to proceed to the review phase.

[mikemorris12]

@acocac I have seen your messages, and I apologize for the delay. My coauthors and I recently hosted a hackathon based around the UTCDW Guidebook materials, and since you asked for discussion of experience using the materials for teaching, we felt it would be best to include a brief discussion of how the hackathon participants responded to the Guidebook in this new section of the paper. I am awaiting approval from the coauthors before submitting the revised paper, it shouldn't take much longer until we're ready to proceed.

[acocac]

@acocac I have seen your messages, and I apologize for the delay. My coauthors and I recently hosted a hackathon based around the UTCDW Guidebook materials, and since you asked for discussion of experience using the materials for teaching, we felt it would be best to include a brief discussion of how the hackathon participants responded to the Guidebook in this new section of the paper. I am awaiting approval from the coauthors before submitting the revised paper, it shouldn't take much longer until we're ready to proceed.

Great - I'm glad to hear you'll incorporate the experience of the hackathon! Feel free to report back when the paper is ready.

[acocac]

@mikemorris12 can you confirm the status of the suggested changes before starting review?

[mikemorris12]

@mikemorris12 can you confirm the status of the suggested changes before starting review?

Hi @acocac, I sincerely apologize for the delay. The paper is now ready for review.

[acocac]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.41 s (584.6 files/s, 427596.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            41           6668            288          27461
Jupyter Notebook                83              0          88840          17821
JavaScript                      21           4573           4489          16561
CSS                             12            811            115           2904
PO File                         45           1007              0           2284
YAML                             6              8              6           1203
TeX                              2             32              0            494
Markdown                        25            316              0            447
Python                           2            119            281            250
SVG                              5              0              1             29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           242          13534          94020          69454
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   156  mike-morris-codes
    15  Michale Morris

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1069

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🔴 License found: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International (Not OSI approved)

[acocac]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[acocac]

Hi @brian-rose — the primary author of a submission to JOSE (The Journal of Open Source Education) has suggested you as a potential reviewer. Could you take a look at this submission and let us know if you might be able to volunteer a review for us? We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time.

Thanks! 🙏

Title: "The University of Toronto Climate Downscaling Workflow: Tools and Resources for Climate Change Impact Analysis" View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[acocac]

Hi @aulemahal - the primary author of a submission to JOSE (The Journal of Open Source Education) has suggested you as a potential reviewer. Could you take a look at this submission and let us know if you might be able to volunteer a review for us? We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time.

Thanks! 🙏

Title: "The University of Toronto Climate Downscaling Workflow: Tools and Resources for Climate Change Impact Analysis" View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[aulemahal]

Hi @acocac , I am able to review this paper, and willing to do so. I see that you have guidelines for reviewers and at first glance, I think I can do that!

[acocac]

Hi @acocac , I am able to review this paper, and willing to do so. I see that you have guidelines for reviewers and at first glance, I think I can do that!

Great - Thanks for the quick and positive response! JOSE reviews are checklist-driven to facilitate the assessment of the submission. We should wait the acceptance of another reviewer to start the review.

[acocac]

@mikemorris12 - fyi, I haven't received any response from Brian Rose, so I'll proceed to contact other suggested reviewers. Apologies for delays on starting the review of your submission.

[acocac]

@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/jose-reviewers

[brian-rose]

@acocac I can do this review! Sorry I got buried in tasks and requests in the second half of my semester but starting to dig myself out now. I should be able to get this done next week.

[acocac]

@acocac I can do this review! Sorry I got buried in tasks and requests in the second half of my semester but starting to dig myself out now. I should be able to get this done next week.

Hi @brian-rose, thanks for the update. It's great to have you as a reviewer of this submission contributing to the climate science community!

I'll open a REVIEW issue to start the formal review.

[acocac]

@editorialbot add @aulemahal as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@aulemahal added to the reviewers list!

[acocac]

@editorialbot add @brian-rose as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@brian-rose added to the reviewers list!

[acocac]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/243.