[REVIEW]: ur-scape: harnessing data for stakeholder participation in city-making processes

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@luyuhao0326@hugoledoux<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @winstonyym, @cforgaci Archive: 10.3929/ethz-b-000578490

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a26d6189208eb13b4f406922ee875891"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a26d6189208eb13b4f406922ee875891/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a26d6189208eb13b4f406922ee875891/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a26d6189208eb13b4f406922ee875891)

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

@winstonyym & @cforgaci, 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 @hugoledoux 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 @winstonyym

📝 Checklist for @cforgaci

editorialbot commented 1 year 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 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.47 s (513.4 files/s, 201844.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unity-Prefab                   207             24              0         154338
C#                             502          17826          23491          88823
Python                           5            575            501           5095
Qt                               1              0              0           1839
HLSL                            22            349            233           1775
JSON                             3              0              0            363
TeX                              1             32              0            173
Markdown                         4             80              0            140
Visual Basic                     1             28             12            103
JavaScript                       1             15              1             71
XML                              1              0              0             46
Objective-C                      1             10              0             37
YAML                             1              1              4             18
HTML                             1              0              0             17
CSS                              1              0              0              8
DOS Batch                        1              2              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           753          18942          24242         252852
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1197

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825 may be a valid DOI for title: Free and open source urbanism: Software for urban planning practice
- 10.1057/udi.2010.25 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographic information system: Old principles with new capabilities
- 10.1038/467912a may be a valid DOI for title: A unified theory of urban living
- 10.3390/ijgi9010049 may be a valid DOI for title: Strengthening Participation Using Interactive Planning Support Systems: A Systematic Review
- 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_1 may be a valid DOI for title: Introduction to ‘planning support systems and smart cities’
- 10.1111/1475-5661.00062 may be a valid DOI for title: Spaces of labour control: Comparative perspectives from Southeast Asia
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.1 may be a valid DOI for title: High Resolution Global Gridded Data for Use in Population Studies
- 10.1007/978-3-319-08299-8_21 may be a valid DOI for title: Geodesign in Practice: What about the urban designers
- 10.2104/ag060022 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographical visualization: A participatory planning support tool for imagining landscape futures
- 10.1177/08854122211068526 may be a valid DOI for title: Semantic City Planning Systems (SCPS): A Literature Review
- 10.1080/18626033.2012.749602 may be a valid DOI for title: A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.4 may be a valid DOI for title: WorldPop, Open Data for Spatial Demography

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

winstonyym commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @winstonyym

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/UrbanRuralSystems/ur-scape?
[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 (@luyuhao0326) 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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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?

cforgaci commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @cforgaci

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/UrbanRuralSystems/ur-scape?
[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 (@luyuhao0326) 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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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?

winstonyym commented 1 year ago

I have completed a first pass of the software and tested the major functionalities. Overall, ur-scape is a beautifully designed software and has clear pragmatic implications for urban planning. It is easy to use and quite aesthetically pleasing. The focus on rapid urbanisation issues in Southeast Asia is indeed a critical and under-studied area. This is especially important given that more than 50% of urbanisation will happen in Asia over the next decade. Software would go a long way to helping planners and local decision makers in these cities. I have raised some minor issues for the authors to consider.

winstonyym commented 1 year ago

I have completed my final pass of ur-scape and expanding testing of the main package functionalities. The authors have kindly addressed the raised issues and we have resolved them successfully. The package works really well, use cases are interesting as well. It was quite an amazing user experience and ur-scape will definitely benefit many city planners in Southeast Asia.

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

Thank you @winstonyym for pointing out these overlooked issues of ur-scape and working with us during the review process. Much appreciated from the ur-scape team 🙏

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

Dear editor(s) @editorialbot @hugoledoux: the authors have addressed the comments from @winstonyym. Please advise our next step moving forward :)

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@luyuhao0326 I have seen yes.

Now we need to wait for @cforgaci feedback, he promised me to do it this week.

cforgaci commented 1 year ago

I have concluded my first review in which I tested the functionalities of ur-scape and examined the documentation. The software is a beautifully designed data visualization and analysis tool with a very accessible interface and considerable impact demonstrated with specific use cases. It would be great if the excellent video material and training data mentioned in https://github.com/UrbanRuralSystems/ur-scape/issues/9 would be made more accessible in the documentation. I raised a couple of minor issues that should be easy to resolve.

cforgaci commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux, please consider my review concluded. @luyuhao0326, thank you for resolving the issues promptly and in full. ur-scape is clearly relevant, versatile, and impactful for the targeted use cases and geographic context. It was a pleasure reviewing it.

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@cforgaci thank you very much for the feedback -- they are meticulous and very helpful. It was a great experience working on this with you.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825 may be a valid DOI for title: Free and open source urbanism: Software for urban planning practice
- 10.1057/udi.2010.25 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographic information system: Old principles with new capabilities
- 10.1038/467912a may be a valid DOI for title: A unified theory of urban living
- 10.1080/01944360903409493 may be a valid DOI for title: Planning support systems for cities and regions
- 10.3390/ijgi9010049 may be a valid DOI for title: Strengthening Participation Using Interactive Planning Support Systems: A Systematic Review
- 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_1 may be a valid DOI for title: Introduction to ‘planning support systems and smart cities’
- 10.1111/1475-5661.00062 may be a valid DOI for title: Spaces of labour control: Comparative perspectives from Southeast Asia
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.1 may be a valid DOI for title: High Resolution Global Gridded Data for Use in Population Studies
- 10.1007/978-3-319-08299-8_21 may be a valid DOI for title: Geodesign in Practice: What about the urban designers
- 10.2104/ag060022 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographical visualization: A participatory planning support tool for imagining landscape futures
- 10.1177/08854122211068526 may be a valid DOI for title: Semantic City Planning Systems (SCPS): A Literature Review
- 10.1080/18626033.2012.749602 may be a valid DOI for title: A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.4 may be a valid DOI for title: WorldPop, Open Data for Spatial Demography

INVALID DOIs

- None

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

I see that the issues from the reviewers have been fixed (pretty quick!) and that the reviewers are happy.

One thing we need to discuss however, and it's a not-so-nice topic: authorship. I see that only 3 of the six authors have contributed to the code, and JOSS works differently from academic. We don't allow the person funding a project to put their names because of the fact that they have the money. The rules are there: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html?highlight=authorship#authorship You'll see that it's not only git commits that count, but since I can't see the contributions of 3 of the authors (especially the first one), could you please elaborate on their contributions to this package?

Also, I went over your paper and fixed a few things, please accept this PR: https://github.com/UrbanRuralSystems/ur-scape/pull/12

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

Thank you @hugoledoux for coordinating our submission. Your question on (co)authorship is critical and I will clarify the roles of each author below.

As you may have noticed, ur-scape is relatively mature with its own UI/UX and a large (growing) body of users (and hopefully more developers with this submission at JOSS). One thing that I can be clear of is that none of the co-authors were included simply because of their "purely financial and organizational" roles in the ur-scape development.

In general, ur-scape is supported by three categories of contributors: designers, scientists, and software engineers. Some of them are coders on Github, and some of them are not. Some of them work astride multiple categories, and some of them have a very focused work task given their expertise. In our submission, we included key contributors from each category to credit their work in the development of ur-scape. In addition, due to the nature and key audience of JOSS, we prioritized contributors with a more software development focus.

The first three authors (Neudecker, Joos, and Zaol-kefli) are key contributors that translated ur-scape from a vision into usable software. Neudecker, in particular, with his expertise in UX/UI and excellent programming skills, not only created a smooth and intuitive user experience but also managed to help us overcome many technical obstacles (e.g. qgis importer).

Lu and Mangal provided support in data management, GIS, and capacity building. ur-scape was never intended to compete with ESRI and QGIS as a mapping software. It however heavily relies on principles and techniques that are crucial to the accuracy and precision of the software. Even though these technicalities are often hidden behind the curtains in ur-scape, we need experts like Lu and Mangal to ensure the science and relevance to the GIS community. Mangal with her background in urban designing also contributes to bringing forth the tool to a range of users varying from experts to non-experts through engagements such as Charrettes and collaborative projects with City governments. She has also developed the capacity-building platform for ur-scape to facilitate an easy uptake of the software. Lu also contributed to the writing, submission, and revision of this submission.

Cairns, the principal investigator of ur-scape, leads the team of software developers and scientists, as well as external designers and professionals to make sure that ur-scape is a piece of software that answers the needs of real-world planners and policy-makers. With his training in architecture, Cairns also pushes ur-scape in its pragmatic and aesthetic capabilities, two important qualities that made stakeholder engagement and idea exchange in ur-scape so effortless and pleasant. Cairns also contributed to the writing of this article.

Ur-scape has also welcomed other developers and contributors in the past, which we have acknowledged on its Github homepage. The authors listed above are the current core team of ur-scape.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

thanks for the statement about authorship, this looks good.

Both reviewers recommend acceptance and your package fulfils all the criteria, at this point could you:

[ ] Accept my PR https://github.com/UrbanRuralSystems/ur-scape/pull/12 -- you just close it w/o accepting it
[ ] 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.

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

Hi @hugoledoux I have addressed the points from above. I am still learning GitHub so please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks again for your support!

PR: accpepted & merged
new release: v0.9.96 has been created and published
software is archived under the ETH research collection, with a DOI 10.3929/ethz-b-000578490
ORCID for Yuhao Lu: 0000-0001-8574-1999

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux DOI of the archived software is now active via ETH Research Collection service: 10.3929/ethz-b-000578490

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

The archive doesn't have the correct metadata: only one author is there.

The list of authors should be exactly the same as that of the paper.

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux I have communicated with ETH Research Collection team and this issue should be ressovled by now. The record can be accessed here.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.3929/ethz-b-000578490 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! Archive is now 10.3929/ethz-b-000578490

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v0.9.96 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v0.9.96

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/sbcs-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/3726, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825 may be a valid DOI for title: Free and open source urbanism: Software for urban planning practice
- 10.1057/udi.2010.25 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographic information system: Old principles with new capabilities
- 10.1038/467912a may be a valid DOI for title: A unified theory of urban living
- 10.1080/01944360903409493 may be a valid DOI for title: Planning support systems for cities and regions
- 10.3390/ijgi9010049 may be a valid DOI for title: Strengthening Participation Using Interactive Planning Support Systems: A Systematic Review
- 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_1 may be a valid DOI for title: Introduction to ‘planning support systems and smart cities’
- 10.1111/1475-5661.00062 may be a valid DOI for title: Spaces of labour control: Comparative perspectives from Southeast Asia
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.1 may be a valid DOI for title: High Resolution Global Gridded Data for Use in Population Studies
- 10.1007/978-3-319-08299-8_21 may be a valid DOI for title: Geodesign in Practice: What about the urban designers
- 10.2104/ag060022 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographical visualization: A participatory planning support tool for imagining landscape futures
- 10.1177/08854122211068526 may be a valid DOI for title: Semantic City Planning Systems (SCPS): A Literature Review
- 10.1080/18626033.2012.749602 may be a valid DOI for title: A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.4 may be a valid DOI for title: WorldPop, Open Data for Spatial Demography

INVALID DOIs

- None

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

@openjournals/sbcs-eics I went too quickly, sorry. All the DOIs are wrong, the authors will fix those and then I'll contact you again. Sorry.

@winstonyym fix the DOIs as suggested above (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4664#issuecomment-1315329310), then we can continue with accepting the paper formally.

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@hugoledoux I am not sure what to fix for the DOIs. I tested them out by copying and pasting the links to my browser and all the links took me to the article that I was citing. I did notice some of them were just a URL while others are DOIs. Could that be causing the issue? I also found this page on JOSS regarding DOI but I am still a bit unclear. Sorry if it is an amateur mistake.

hugoledoux commented 1 year ago

so you don't store DOI but URL, and only the numbers need to be there, without the http://doi.org/ part.

As an example, this line should be:

doi={10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825},

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

Failed to parse BibTeX on value "https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2010.25" (NAME) [#<BibTeX::Bibliography data=[2]>, "@", #<BibTeX::Entry >, {:url=>["10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825"], :author=>["{Yap}, W. and {Janssen}, P. and {Biljecki}, F"], :journal=>["Computers, Environment and Urban Systems"], :title=>["{Free and open source urbanism: Software for urban planning practice}"], :year=>"2022"}]

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

Failed to parse BibTeX on value "https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2010.25" (NAME) [#<BibTeX::Bibliography data=[2]>, "@", #<BibTeX::Entry >, {:doi=>["10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825"], :author=>["{Yap}, W. and {Janssen}, P. and {Biljecki}, F"], :journal=>["Computers, Environment and Urban Systems"], :title=>["{Free and open source urbanism: Software for urban planning practice}"], :year=>"2022"}]

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/23998083211016122 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825 is OK
- 10.1057/udi.2010.25 is OK
- 10.1038/467912a is OK
- 10.3390/ijgi9010049 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.1 is OK
- 10.1177/08854122211068526 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_1 may be a valid DOI for title: Introduction to ‘planning support systems and smart cities’
- 10.1111/1475-5661.00062 may be a valid DOI for title: Spaces of labour control: Comparative perspectives from Southeast Asia
- 10.1007/978-3-319-08299-8_21 may be a valid DOI for title: Geodesign in Practice: What about the urban designers
- 10.2104/ag060022 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographical visualization: A participatory planning support tool for imagining landscape futures
- 10.1080/18626033.2012.749602 may be a valid DOI for title: A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design

INVALID DOIs

- None

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/23998083211016122 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825 is OK
- 10.1057/udi.2010.25 is OK
- 10.1038/467912a is OK
- 10.3390/ijgi9010049 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_1 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.1 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-08299-8_21 is OK
- 10.1177/08854122211068526 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1111/1475-5661.00062 may be a valid DOI for title: Spaces of labour control: Comparative perspectives from Southeast Asia
- 10.2104/ag060022 may be a valid DOI for title: Geographical visualization: A participatory planning support tool for imagining landscape futures
- 10.1080/18626033.2012.749602 may be a valid DOI for title: A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-37533-0noAccesstrue is INVALID

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/23998083211016122 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101825 is OK
- 10.1057/udi.2010.25 is OK
- 10.1038/467912a is OK
- 10.3390/ijgi9010049 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_1 is OK
- 10.1111/1475-5661.00062 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.1 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-08299-8_21 is OK
- 10.2104/ag060022 is OK
- 10.1177/08854122211068526 is OK
- 10.1177/0739456X15581606 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2017.4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-642-37533-0noAccesstrue is INVALID

luyuhao0326 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

openjournals / joss-reviews