[REVIEW]: RHEIA: Robust design optimization of renewable Hydrogen and dErIved energy cArrier systems

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DCoppitters@fraukewiese<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @andr1976, @ClaraBuettner Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6782705

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fd7e487df85a808f1005a447f731f12"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fd7e487df85a808f1005a447f731f12/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fd7e487df85a808f1005a447f731f12/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3fd7e487df85a808f1005a447f731f12)

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

@andr1976 & @ClaraBuettner, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @andr1976

📝 Checklist for @ClaraBuettner

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.17 s (319.9 files/s, 130240.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              6              6              6           7477
Python                          27           1806           3246           3206
TeX                              2            293              0           2623
reStructuredText                15            999           1141           1363
Markdown                         2             29              0            124
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
TOML                             1              1              0             17
make                             1              4              6              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            55           3146           4400          14845
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118798 is OK
- 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117049 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4044491 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120692 is OK
- 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.549 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.101 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.132 is OK
- 10.3390/app10196653 is OK
- 10.1007/s11831-017-9240-5 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3827 is OK
- 10.3390/en14134027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.12.015 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00676 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784413609.257 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00825 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1043

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:

andr1976 commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @andr1976

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 https://github.com/rheia-framework/RHEIA?
[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 (@DCoppitters) 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?

andr1976 commented 2 years ago

@fraukewiese I have started the review, and 9 days ago I filed an issue and a pull request, but I am not getting any response from the author DCoppitters. Can you contact him with a friendly reminder, just to make sure that the review can proceed

ClaraBuettner commented 2 years ago

Review checklist for @ClaraBuettner

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 https://github.com/rheia-framework/RHEIA?
[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 (@DCoppitters) 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 commented 2 years ago

@DCoppitters : Have you seen the issue and pull request from @andr1976 regarding the review process?

DCoppitters commented 2 years ago

@fraukewiese : I have seen the issues and pull request. My apologies for not getting back to the reviewers sooner.

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@andr1976 Thanks for your review so far! Have your comments been adequately answered/handled?

andr1976 commented 2 years ago

Yes they have

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:36 AM fraukewiese @.***> wrote:

@andr1976 https://github.com/andr1976 Thanks for your review so far! Have your comments been adequately answered/handled?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4370#issuecomment-1154951307, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AN6EID44XBJCYPDPVZL7LE3VPBHDNANCNFSM5VBHSNOQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@andr1976 Thanks for your review, would you recommend this submission for publication?

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@ClaraBuettner : Thank you for your review so far. As the checklist is complete: Do you have any comments/suggestions/questions to the author? Would you recommend this submission for publication in its present form or is there anything that should be revised?

andr1976 commented 2 years ago

@fraukewiese yes indeed

ClaraBuettner commented 2 years ago

@ClaraBuettner : Thank you for your review so far. As the checklist is complete: Do you have any comments/suggestions/questions to the author? Would you recommend this submission for publication in its present form or is there anything that should be revised?

No, I don't have any other comments or questions. I would recommend this submission for publication in its present form.

fraukewiese 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

- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118798 is OK
- 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117049 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4044491 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120692 is OK
- 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.549 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.101 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.132 is OK
- 10.3390/app10196653 is OK
- 10.1007/s11831-017-9240-5 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3827 is OK
- 10.3390/en14134027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.12.015 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00676 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784413609.257 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00825 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

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

@andr1976 and @ClaraBuettner: Thank you very much for your review!

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@DCoppitters : At this point 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.

DCoppitters commented 2 years ago

@andr1976 and @ClaraBuettner : Thanks a lot for your review, time and efforts!

@fraukewiese : Below the required information:

v1.0.0
10.5281/zenodo.6782705

Thanks a lot for your time and efforts!

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! version is now v1.0.0

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6782705 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6782705

fraukewiese commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6782705 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6782705

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

- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118798 is OK
- 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117049 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4044491 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120692 is OK
- 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.549 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.101 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.132 is OK
- 10.3390/app10196653 is OK
- 10.1007/s11831-017-9240-5 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3827 is OK
- 10.3390/en14134027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.12.015 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00676 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784413609.257 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00825 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/3327

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3327, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@DCoppitters - I'm the AEiC this week who will complete processing of this paper. I've suggested some small changes to the paper in https://github.com/rheia-framework/RHEIA/pull/14 - please merge this or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed.

DCoppitters commented 2 years ago

@danielskatz : Thank you for improving the paper, I merged the pull request.

danielskatz 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

- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118798 is OK
- 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117049 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4044491 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120692 is OK
- 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.549 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.101 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.132 is OK
- 10.3390/app10196653 is OK
- 10.1007/s11831-017-9240-5 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2017-3827 is OK
- 10.3390/en14134027 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.12.015 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00884 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00676 is OK
- 10.1061/9780784413609.257 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00825 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::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3337, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz 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/3338
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04370
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

Congratulations to @DCoppitters (Diederik Coppitters) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @andr1976 and @ClaraBuettner for reviewing and to @fraukewiese for editing! We couldn't do this without you!

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.04370/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04370)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04370">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04370/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04370/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04370

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

openjournals / joss-reviews