[REVIEW]: atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @fabianhofmann (Fabian Hofmann) Repository: https://github.com/PyPSA/atlite Version: v0.2.5 Editor: @timtroendle Reviewer: @kanderso-nrel, @crvernon Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5026365

: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/2633d9a82d0ce2720a1ae8d09619ecab"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2633d9a82d0ce2720a1ae8d09619ecab/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2633d9a82d0ce2720a1ae8d09619ecab/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/2633d9a82d0ce2720a1ae8d09619ecab)

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

@kanderso-nrel & @crvernon, 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 @kanderso-nrel

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 (@fabianhofmann) 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 @crvernon

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 (@fabianhofmann) 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?

FabianHofmann commented 3 years ago

@timtroendle, we won't address https://github.com/PyPSA/atlite/issues/158 for now, but keep it for later.

The tagged version is v0.2.5 (see tag)

FabianHofmann commented 3 years ago

Hey @timtroendle, the zenodo record is here: https://zenodo.org/record/5026365 (I had to make a rerelease of version 0.2.5 as zenodo does not pull from past GH releases, the version 0.2.5.0 on zenodo is identical to the version 0.2.5)

timtroendle commented 3 years ago

@whedon set v0.2.5 as version

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. v0.2.5 is the version.

timtroendle commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5026365 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5026365 is the archive.

timtroendle commented 3 years ago

That's great @FabianHofmann. We can now move on with the acceptance process.

timtroendle commented 3 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #3294 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

timtroendle commented 3 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss

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

- 10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.071 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.222 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2013.09.012 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.012 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.1016/j.solener.2009.12.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.049 is OK
- 10.1002/hyp.9740 is OK
- 10.1016/j.mex.2019.05.024 is OK
- 10.1016/0038-092x(88)90045-x is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060 is OK
- 10.1016/0038-092X(90)90060-P is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2009.07.018 is OK
- 10.3390/en11051246 is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2006.05.001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.068 is OK
- 10.1016/j.joule.2020.07.018 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/2412

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2412, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

kyleniemeyer commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss

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/2413
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03294
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer commented 3 years ago

Congratulations @FabianHofmann on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @kanderso-nrel and @crvernon for reviewing this, and @timtroendle for editing.

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.03294/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03294)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03294">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03294/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03294/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03294

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

FabianHofmann commented 3 years ago

Thank you @kyleniemeyer, @timtroendle, @crvernon and @kanderso-nrel! I loved this transparent, professional and friendly review process!

openjournals / joss-reviews