[REVIEW]: LoadProfileGenerator: An Agent-Based Behavior Simulation for Generating Residential Load Profiles

[whedon]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@noah80<!--end-author-handle-- (Noah) Repository: https://github.com/FZJ-IEK3-VSA/LoadProfileGenerator Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v10.8.0 Editor: !--editor-->@fraukewiese<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mewilhel, @szkafander Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6304843

: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/919ba68d6f5c2b0a0f9ece86bb74a535"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/919ba68d6f5c2b0a0f9ece86bb74a535/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/919ba68d6f5c2b0a0f9ece86bb74a535/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/919ba68d6f5c2b0a0f9ece86bb74a535)

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

@szkafander & @mewilhel , please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. 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 @fraukewiese 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 @mewilhel

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 (@noah80) 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 @szkafander

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 (@noah80) 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?

[fraukewiese]

@noah80 : Are there any updates on the submission?

[noah80]

We are currently preparing the new release. Should be out soon. Almost all tests pass already. I'll update the issue as soon as it's released.

[fraukewiese]

Thanks for the update.

[fraukewiese]

@noah80 : Are there any updates on the submission?

[noah80]

All issues should be adressed now and the Python interface has been released as open source. Sorry things took so long.

[fraukewiese]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[fraukewiese]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115784 is OK
- 10.3390/en12050956 is OK
- 10.3390/buildings10080138 is OK
- 10.1016/j.est.2019.100763 is OK
- 10.3390/data5040102 is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.153 is OK
- 10.24451/arbor.9325 is OK
- 10.24451/arbor.9321 is OK
- 10.24451/arbor.7561 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2012.08.013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.069 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.033 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.089 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109667 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[fraukewiese]

@noah80 Just a minor comment on the article: In the section Examples for previous usage, could you remove the brackets of the references since it is directly integrated in the sentence. Thus: "Harder et al. (2020) analyzed operating flexibility in electricity grids." instead of (Harder et al., 2020) analyzed operating flexibility in electricity grids.

[fraukewiese]

@noah80 Then, could you

• [ ] 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.

[noah80]

Hi,

@fraukewiese Last weeks have been a bit crazy. Here are the releases:

1. https://github.com/FZJ-IEK3-VSA/LoadProfileGenerator/releases/tag/v10.8.0

2. https://zenodo.org/record/6304843

Thank you!

Best, Noah

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot set v10.8.0 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v10.8.0

[fraukewiese]

@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:

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6304843 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6304843

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

: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/3005

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3005, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @noah80, I just submitted a small PR to fix some reference formatting in the paper: https://github.com/FZJ-IEK3-VSA/LoadProfileGenerator/pull/15

Could you merge this? I can then accept the paper.

[noah80]

Done!

[kyleniemeyer]

@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:

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3018
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03574
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kyleniemeyer]

Congratulations @noah80 on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @mewilhel and @szkafander for reviewing this, and @fraukewiese for editing it.

[editorialbot]

: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.03574/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03574)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03574">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03574/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03574/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03574

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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

[editorialbot]

🌈 Paper updated!

New PDF and metadata files :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3093