[REVIEW]: autumn: A Python library for dynamic modelling of captured CO~2~ cost potential curves

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @Eugenio2192 (Eugenio Salvador Arellano Ruiz) Repository: https://gitlab.com/dlr-ve/autumn/ Version: v0.1.0 Editor: @timtroendle Reviewers: @igarizio, @milicag Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5163098

: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/d7bab860686df296e35cc437f0630ff2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7bab860686df296e35cc437f0630ff2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7bab860686df296e35cc437f0630ff2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d7bab860686df296e35cc437f0630ff2)

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

@potterzot & @igarizio, 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 @timtroendle 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 @milicag

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 (@Eugenio2192) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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 @igarizio

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 (@Eugenio2192) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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?

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1039/C7EE02342A is OK
- 10.1007/s11356-016-6810-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.11.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-20015-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.114 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.222 is OK
- 10.18419/opus-2015 is OK
- 10.1016/j.epsr.2020.106690 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.5b03474 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

Everything looks good to me and I am happy to move forward. At this point, @Eugenio2192 could you please:

[ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
[ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
[ ] Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
[ ] Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

Eugenio2192 commented 2 years ago

Hello @timtroendle Here is the DOI of the archived version: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5153667 I released the archived version under the tag JOSS: https://gitlab.com/dlr-ve/autumn/-/tree/JOSS

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

Thanks, @Eugenio2192 . I've seen you are releasing this as a JOSS version. You are free to do so, as JOSS is not limiting you in any way. Still, most authors choose the use the semantic versioning scheme for their software, resulting in version numbers like v.1.4.0. Are you sure you want to use JOSS as your version tag?

I will then move on right away and recommend acceptance of your submission.

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5153667 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5153667 is the archive.

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

@whedon set JOSS as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. JOSS is the version.

Eugenio2192 commented 2 years ago

I also made a v0.1.0 tag (will turn to ones once we do the PIPy release) with exactly the same content, my reasoning behind the JOSS tag was to have users be able to quickly reference the version associated to the publication. I will keep both in the repo but now that you mention the semantic versioning I would opt for the v0.1.0 tag for the paper if that can still be changed.

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

We can still switch the version, no problem. Please ensure that the archive has the correct version. Right now it's still JOSS. Please let me know once you've updated that.

FYI: The paper will mention the version and also link to the archive. Readers of the paper should therefore have no problem finding the correct version.

Eugenio2192 commented 2 years ago

DOI with the correct version: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5163098

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5163098 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5163098 is the archive.

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

@whedon set v0.1.0 as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. v0.1.0 is the version.

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

Thanks @Eugenio2192 for letting me know. And thanks a lot to @igarizio and @milicag for reviewing this submission. I will go ahead and recommend the acceptance of this submission.

timtroendle commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1039/C7EE02342A is OK
- 10.1007/s11356-016-6810-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.11.004 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-20015-4 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.114 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.222 is OK
- 10.18419/opus-2015 is OK
- 10.1016/j.epsr.2020.106690 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.5b03474 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 2 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/2495

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2495, 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 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

whedon commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 2 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/2498
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03203
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 2 years ago

@igarizio, @milicag – many thanks for your reviews here and to @timtroendle for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@Eugenio2192 – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

whedon commented 2 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.03203/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03203)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03203">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03203/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03203/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03203

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