[REVIEW]: AixCaliBuHA: Automated calibration of building and HVAC systems

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@FWuellhorst@fraukewiese<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @samanmostafavi, @shamsiharis Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6475439

: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/ef57939010ca99df11bf4c2056dd7caf"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef57939010ca99df11bf4c2056dd7caf/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef57939010ca99df11bf4c2056dd7caf/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef57939010ca99df11bf4c2056dd7caf)

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

@@shamsiharis & @samanmostafavi, 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 @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 @shamsiharis

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 (@FWuellhorst) 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 @samanmostafavi

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 (@FWuellhorst) 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?

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@samanmostafavi Thanks for the really nice review! I will definitely try out the parsing tools. Especially for new approaches such as agent based control or digital twins, small models will be more relevant for us. For these cases, pymoca will hopefully work! I will also follow your updates :)

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

My name is now @editorialbot

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00097 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.007 is OK
- 10.26868/25222708.2019.210992 is OK
- 10.3384/ecp21181561 is OK
- 10.3384/ecp18154121 is OK
- 10.3384/ECP14096647 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114888 is OK
- 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot 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:

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@FWuellhorst : Please check the following in the paper:

Is there any DOI or URL available for King, D. E. (2009). Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10, 1755–1758 ?
Is there any DOI or URL available for Mehrfeld, P., Nürenberg, M., & Müller, D. (2021). Model Calibration of an Air Source Heat Pump System for Transient Simulations in Modelica. 13th IEA Heat Pump Conference ?
Is there any DOI or URL available for Müller, D., Lauster, M., Constantin, A., Fuchs, M., & Remmen, P. (2016). AixLib – An Open-Source Modelica Library within the IEA-EBC Annex 60 Framework. Proceedings of the CESBP Central European Symposium on Building Physics and BauSIM 2016 ?
Same here: Vering, C., Borges, D., Sebastian Coakly, Krützfeldt, H., Mehrfeld, P., & Müller, D. (2021). Digital twin design with on-line calibration for HVAC systems in buildings. Proceedings of the 17th IBPSA Conference, 8.

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

After that, 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.

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00097 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.007 is OK
- 10.26868/25222708.2019.210992 is OK
- 10.3384/ecp21181561 is OK
- 10.3384/ecp18154121 is OK
- 10.3384/ECP14096647 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114888 is OK
- 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1145/1577069.1755843 is INVALID

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@fraukewiese Sadly, these conference papers don't have a DOI. Regarding "King, D. E. (2009). Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10, 1755–1758", a DOI is available on ReserachGate (10.1145/1577069.1755843), however, this DOI is not valid according to https://dx.doi.org/ and thus also for the editorial bot.

Is this a problem? If not, I would continue with the described steps.

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@FWuellhorst I see. Then it is ok to go on without those doi.

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@fraukewiese : Thanks for the quick answer and the time associated with this review process! I followed all steps:

Tagged release: https://github.com/RWTH-EBC/AixCaliBuHA/releases/tag/0.3.0
Release tag: v_0.3.0
DOI of zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.6475439

I hope that everything is correct.

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot 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:

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6475439 as archive

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set v_0.3.0 as version

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! version is now v_0.3.0

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6475439 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6475439

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00097 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.007 is OK
- 10.26868/25222708.2019.210992 is OK
- 10.3384/ecp21181561 is OK
- 10.3384/ecp18154121 is OK
- 10.3384/ECP14096647 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114888 is OK
- 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot 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/3161

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3161, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@fraukewiese: Thank you very much for the recommended acceptance! Is the last comment directed at me or at you?

arfon commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot 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/3162
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03861
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

@samanmostafavi, @shamsiharis – many thanks for your reviews here and to @fraukewiese 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 ✨

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

editorialbot 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.03861/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03861)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03861">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03861/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03861/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03861

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

FWuellhorst commented 2 years ago

@samanmostafavi @shamsiharis Thanks again for the really good review and all your time put into this!

@fraukewiese @arfon: Thanks for providing the possibility to publish open-source software for research using JOSS. I really appreciate the concept of the journal and the review process. I've signed up as a reviewer. Maybe I can be of help in future reviews as well.

openjournals / joss-reviews