[REVIEW]: AMIRIS: Agent-based Market model for the Investigation of Renewable and Integrated energy Systems

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@KriNiTi@fraukewiese<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @sebastianboblest, @imcatta Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7756088

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21defae1052ec6fefd5e144dbef9cbf0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21defae1052ec6fefd5e144dbef9cbf0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21defae1052ec6fefd5e144dbef9cbf0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/21defae1052ec6fefd5e144dbef9cbf0)

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

@sebastianboblest & @imcatta, 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 @imcatta

📝 Checklist for @SebastianBoblest

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=0.14 s (719.9 files/s, 69691.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                            76            809           1803           4939
YAML                             3             27             19            566
XML                              4              3              6            460
Markdown                         9            106              0            369
Python                           7             57            101            191
TeX                              1             27              0            185
Maven                            1              5              2            103
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           101           1034           1931           6813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 886

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Failed to discover a valid open source license

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1155/2017/7494313 is OK
- 10.3390/en13153920 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117267 is OK
- 10.3390/en13205350 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5726738 is OK
- 10.1109/PES.2005.1489271 is OK
- 10.1145/3307772.3335321 is OK
- 10.1109/MIS.2011.3 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2008.01.003 is INVALID (failed connection)
- doi:10.5771/9783845227443 is INVALID (failed connection)
- doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.189 is INVALID (failed connection)
- doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07.009 is INVALID (failed connection)
- doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.037 is INVALID (failed connection)
- doi:10.18419/opus-11132 is INVALID (failed connection)

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:

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@KriNiTi Please check the invalid DOIs

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@KriNiTi : Please check on your license.

imcatta commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @imcatta

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://gitlab.com/dlr-ve/esy/amiris/amiris?
[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 (@KriNiTi) 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
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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?

dlr-cjs commented 1 year ago

Dear all,

although @KriNiTi submitted the paper, I will serve as primary contact for the review.

@fraukewiese : I fixed the invalid DOIs

Regarding the license: We follow the REUSE Software licensing guide and provide a license statement for each file in the repository. All licenses used in the repository can be found in the "LICSENSES" folder. All "valuable" code is licensed under Apache2.0, other less meaningful files like ".gitignore" are licensed unter CC0-1.0.

REUSE compliance of the repository is tested during CI.

Kind regards Christoph

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check license

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1155/2017/7494313 is OK
- 10.3390/en13153920 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117267 is OK
- 10.3390/en13205350 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.01.003 is OK
- 10.5771/9783845227443 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.189 is OK
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.037 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5726738 is OK
- 10.18419/opus-11132 is OK
- 10.1109/PES.2005.1489271 is OK
- 10.1145/3307772.3335321 is OK
- 10.1109/MIS.2011.3 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello @fraukewiese, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for archive
@editorialbot set 10.21105/zenodo.12345 as archive

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.11 s (939.9 files/s, 90997.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                            76            809           1803           4939
YAML                             3             27             19            566
XML                              4              3              6            460
Markdown                         9            106              0            369
Python                           7             57            101            191
TeX                              1             27              0            185
Maven                            1              5              2            103
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           101           1034           1931           6813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 886

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Failed to discover a valid open source license

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

Dear all,

although @KriNiTi submitted the paper, I will serve as primary contact for the review.

@fraukewiese : I fixed the invalid DOIs

Regarding the license: We follow the REUSE Software licensing guide and provide a license statement for each file in the repository. All licenses used in the repository can be found in the "LICSENSES" folder. All "valuable" code is licensed under Apache2.0, other less meaningful files like ".gitignore" are licensed unter CC0-1.0.

REUSE compliance of the repository is tested during CI.

Kind regards Christoph

Do you see a possibility for the license to be discovered automatically?

dlr-cjs commented 1 year ago

Dear @fraukewiese - we are in search of a solution see here and keep you updated.

dlr-cjs commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.15 s (659.3 files/s, 63827.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                            76            809           1803           4939
YAML                             3             27             19            566
XML                              4              3              6            460
Markdown                         9            106              0            369
Python                           7             57            101            191
TeX                              1             27              0            185
Maven                            1              5              2            103
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           101           1034           1931           6813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 886

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Failed to discover a valid open source license

dlr-cjs commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.14 s (714.2 files/s, 69145.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                            76            809           1803           4939
YAML                             3             27             19            566
XML                              4              3              6            460
Markdown                         9            106              0            369
Python                           7             57            101            191
TeX                              1             27              0            185
Maven                            1              5              2            103
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           101           1034           1931           6813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 886

dlr-cjs commented 1 year ago

Dear @fraukewiese , we added an additional LICENSE file to the project root - seems to work now. REUSE is not (yet) supported by many license crawlers.

pombredanne commented 1 year ago

May I suggest that your bot considers using a better FOSS license scanner like https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit ? It would have detected everything correctly (with only some approximation for the CLA) and its works with REUSE and other conventions and never requires project to update its codebase.

pombredanne commented 1 year ago

@dlr-cjs re:

It would have detected everything correctly (with only some approximation for the CLA) and its works with REUSE and other conventions and never requires project to update its codebase.

I have attached the scan in JSON format for reference. Note that this may highlight a very minor inconsistency in your license documentation: In https://gitlab.com/dlr-ve/esy/amiris/amiris/-/blob/3-prepare-publication-at-joss/src/test/setup.py there are mentions of both a CC0 and an Apache license, but which one applies is not clear. This is not relevant to your paper license in any case.

amiris-3-prepare-publication-at-joss-scancode-scan.json.txt

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@SebastianBoblest : Could you please update us on how the review is going?

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@imcatta : How is the review going?

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@dlr-cjs and @pombredanne : Thanks for the effort and information on the license issue.

SebastianBoblest commented 1 year ago

hi,

did not yet find the time. I plan to start next week. I hoped to do it during the Christmas Holiday.

Best Sebastian

fraukewiese @.***> schrieb am Do., 2. Feb. 2023, 17:08:

@SebastianBoblest https://github.com/SebastianBoblest : Could you please update us on how the review is going?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5041#issuecomment-1413989017, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARTHLZL22MU5XNYRHFP3SSDWVPLWRANCNFSM6AAAAAATSBBZAE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

fraukewiese commented 1 year ago

@sebastianboblest : Thanks for the info :)

imcatta commented 1 year ago

@imcatta : How is the review going?

I have started my review, but have not yet managed to complete it. I plan to continue it next week.

SebastianBoblest commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate my checklist

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@SebastianBoblest I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

SebastianBoblest commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello @SebastianBoblest, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

SebastianBoblest commented 1 year ago

@SebastianBoblest I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

@imcatta That did not work so well. Did I do something wrong?

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

imcatta commented 1 year ago

@SebastianBoblest I can't do that because you are not a reviewer

@imcatta That did not work so well. Did I do something wrong?

It looks fine to me. @fraukewiese can you help us, please?

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remove @SebastianBoblest as reviewer

(trying something)

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@SebastianBoblest is not in the reviewers list

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @SebastianBoblest as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@SebastianBoblest added to the reviewers list!

danielskatz commented 1 year ago

try it again now, please

openjournals / joss-reviews