[REVIEW]: OMG: A Scalable and Flexible Simulation and TestingEnvironment Toolbox for Intelligent Microgrid Control

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @stheid (Stefan Heid) Repository: https://github.com/upb-lea/openmodelica-microgrid-gym Version: 0.2.0-2 Editor: @dhhagan Reviewer: @katyhuff, @gonsie Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4041278

: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.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdb34bbb22dcdb5f7bee986ef2064d02"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdb34bbb22dcdb5f7bee986ef2064d02/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdb34bbb22dcdb5f7bee986ef2064d02/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bdb34bbb22dcdb5f7bee986ef2064d02)

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

@katyhuff & @gonsie, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

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

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨

Review checklist for @katyhuff

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@stheid) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @gonsie

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@stheid) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed? (unable to evaluate)
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.) (unable to evaluate)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

stheid commented 3 years ago

Oh, thanks a lot. I completely overlooked that i have to edit the entry to be consistent. Its corrected now.

I think the DOI did not change. As said currently the versions state is for the technical reason in a bit of an unfortunate state, and we are not ready to roll out a new release right now. So we would keep everything at 0.2.0-2 if this is ok.

Where is the DOI of the release connected to JOSS. Do we need to update the something for future releases, because i assume after the reviewing process here is finished, the project will still continue to grow.

dhhagan commented 3 years ago

@arfon Can you chime in on the last part of @stheid's request above?

arfon commented 3 years ago

I think the DOI did not change. As said currently the versions state is for the technical reason in a bit of an unfortunate state, and we are not ready to roll out a new release right now. So we would keep everything at 0.2.0-2 if this is ok.

The thing we (JOSS) care about here is that the archive of the software includes the changes that have resulted from this review.

Where is the DOI of the release connected to JOSS. Do we need to update the something for future releases, because i assume after the reviewing process here is finished, the project will still continue to grow.

We reference this archive in the JOSS metadata and it's linked to from the paper and the website.

stheid commented 3 years ago

The thing we (JOSS) care about here is that the archive of the software includes the changes that have resulted from this review.

that is the case! :)

We reference this archive in the JOSS metadata and it's linked to from the paper and the website.

In that case maybe using the version-agnostic DOI is better? 10.5281/zenodo.4041277 But in any case if you are fine with everything, we are too.

Thanks a lot for clearing things up.

arfon commented 3 years ago

I think we would prefer to link to 10.5281/zenodo.4041278 as this is the version most closely associated with the review. Don't forget that the paper also links to the software repository in the margin too so readers will have a link to the live software repository to access the latest version of the code.

stheid commented 3 years ago

yeah, thats ok for us.

dhhagan commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4041278 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4041278 is the archive.

dhhagan commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3384/ecp18154206 is OK
- 10.1109/MPE.2008.918718 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.123 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.188 is OK
- 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2829021 is OK
- 10.1109/TIE.2012.2194969 is OK
- 10.1109/TIE.2012.2196889 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1764

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1764, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@dhhagan thanks for editing this one. I'll process this now for acceptance in JOSS. One point, for future reference, please always check that the ZENODO meta data (authors, title, version tag) match that of the paper.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@stheid I'll be processing this work for acceptance in JOSS. Please work on the remaining minor points below, thanks:

[x] The reviewed submission is at v0.1.3 while the provided archived version is at v0.2.0-2. Please create a new archived version for v0.1.3. When you do this also make sure the ZENODO meta-data for the author names and the title match as well. You may need to manually edit this.
[ ] Please add city and country information for all affiliations (do not use acronyms for countries)
[x] This work is about to be accepted in JOSS. We recommend you proofread your paper once more yourself at this stage, and also verify the accuracy of the author names, affiliations, and acknowledgments.

stheid commented 3 years ago

That all sounds good :)

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman How to create a zenodo archive of a already released version. I have the impression this is impossible (that was the only reason we created 0.2.0-2 in the first place)

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 0.2.0-2 as version

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 0.2.0-2 is the version.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@stheid I've now changed the version tag listed for this review so that seems to have removed that discrepancy. Please still update the archive title/authors if these deviate from the paper.

stheid commented 3 years ago

The authors already matched up, i just alligned the ordering.
i corrected the title.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3384/ecp18154206 is OK
- 10.1109/MPE.2008.918718 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.123 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.188 is OK
- 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2829021 is OK
- 10.1109/TIE.2012.2194969 is OK
- 10.1109/TIE.2012.2196889 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1776

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1776, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@stheid

[ ] Please add city/country information to your affiliations

stheid commented 3 years ago

like this? To be honest i don't understand where exactly the issue is.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

@stheid please edit the affiliation in the YAML at the top of your paper.md file.

stheid commented 3 years ago

Like so https://github.com/upb-lea/openmodelica-microgrid-gym/commit/6eeabca6163c399f8ab494f57c297d3235b81fbf?

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 3 years ago

Like so upb-lea/openmodelica-microgrid-gym@6eeabca?

@stheid yes but please also add the city

stheid commented 3 years ago

https://github.com/upb-lea/openmodelica-microgrid-gym/commit/a259b405cf4760bc3af1979f6d51b4ce2e00c555

Sorry, i thought it would be clear enough ^^; But i added it now.

arfon commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3384/ecp18154206 is OK
- 10.1109/MPE.2008.918718 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.123 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.188 is OK
- 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2829021 is OK
- 10.1109/TIE.2012.2194969 is OK
- 10.1109/TIE.2012.2196889 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1781

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1781, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

arfon commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 3 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1782
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02435
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 3 years ago

@katyhuff, @gonsie - many thanks for your reviews here and to @dhhagan for editing this submission ✨

@stheid - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

whedon commented 3 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02435/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02435)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02435">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02435/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02435/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02435

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews