[PRE REVIEW]: WorldDynamics.jl: A Julia Package for Developing and Simulating Integrated Assessment Models

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@aurorarossi<!--end-author-handle-- (Aurora Rossi) Repository: https://github.com/worlddynamics/WorldDynamics.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS-paper Version: v0.4.2 Editor: !--editor-->@fraukewiese<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ranocha, @StanczakDominik Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08cccf50f6c78d89128b2eb3c6c68a05"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08cccf50f6c78d89128b2eb3c6c68a05/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08cccf50f6c78d89128b2eb3c6c68a05/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/08cccf50f6c78d89128b2eb3c6c68a05)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @aurorarossi. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@aurorarossi if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.07 s (2160.0 files/s, 151660.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                          135           1868             15           7200
Markdown                         7            134              0            927
TeX                              1             24              0            169
YAML                             3              3              4             55
TOML                             2              3              0             31
SVG                              1              0              4             25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           149           2032             23           8407
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1180

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s10584-018-2218-y is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5083412 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.21203/rs.3.rs-55125/v1 may be a valid DOI for title: Universal Differential Equations for Scientific Machine Learning
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac243e may be a valid DOI for title: A simple model for assessing climate control trade-offs and responding to unanticipated climate outcomes
- 10.31223/x50w8d may be a valid DOI for title: The Earth4All model of human wellbeing on a finite planet towards 2100
- 10.1038/sdata.2018.187 may be a valid DOI for title: Mimi-PAGE, an open-source implementation of the PAGE09 integrated assessment model
- 10.21105/joss.04561 may be a valid DOI for title: GlobalSensitivity. jl: Performant and Parallel Global Sensitivity Analysis with Julia

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @aurorarossi - thanks for you submission. I'll look for an editor as the next step.

While I do this, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

👋 @fraukewiese - I wonder if you might be able to edit this submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @fraukewiese as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[aurorarossi]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac243e is OK
- 10.31223/X50W8D is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-018-2218-y is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2018.187 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.03866 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2103.05244 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.151 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5083412 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04561 is OK
- 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00059-7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-55125/v1 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[aurorarossi]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21203/rs.3.rs-55125/v1 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac243e is OK
- 10.31223/X50W8D is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-018-2218-y is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2018.187 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2206.03866 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2103.05244 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.151 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5083412 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04561 is OK
- 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00059-7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[aurorarossi]

@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:

[aurorarossi]

Thanks @danielskatz! I fixed the DOIs and regenerated the pdf.

[danielskatz]

👋 @fraukewiese - just a ping to see if you can edit this submission...

[fraukewiese]

Yes, I can edit this submission.

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @fraukewiese is now the editor

[fraukewiese]

@aurorarossi : Do you have suggestions for potential reviewers?

[aurorarossi]

@fraukewiese Here is a list of potential reviewers. We have listed them in order of pertinence to the topic.

• ChrisRackauckas
• ranocha
• SichengHe
• r-barnes
• StanczakDominik
• arbennett

Thank you!

[fraukewiese]

@danielhuppmann , @amastrucci @ranocha – would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[amastrucci]

@danielhuppmann , @amastrucci @ranocha – would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Dear Frauke, many thanks for the invitation to review this submission. Unfortunately I won't have time in the coming weeks due to busy schedule.

[ranocha]

I may have a look but it will take some time since I have already agreed to write quite a few reviews. Thus, I do not expect to have a look before June.

[fraukewiese]

@amastrucci : Thanks for your fast reply :)

[fraukewiese]

@ranocha : I think June would be fine. In the meanwhile I will try to find a second reviewer. Thus, is it ok if I make you reviewer?

[ranocha]

Ok

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot add @ranocha as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ranocha added to the reviewers list!

[fraukewiese]

@gidden @khaeru @r-barnes – would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[fraukewiese]

@gidden @khaeru @r-barnes – would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[danielskatz]

Hi all - since I don't see any changes on this in the last month, I'm just checking to make sure this is still moving forward. Are there any problems?

[fraukewiese]

Sorry, I am just back in office and continue now by trying to find reviewers.

[fraukewiese]

@ChrisRackauckas @SichengHe @StanczakDominik – would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

[StanczakDominik]

I think I'm in a stable enough situation ATM to give it a good looking through, so, yeah, I'd be happy to :) but I probably can't get to it before Tuesday.

[fraukewiese]

@StanczakDominik : Thank you very much! I will add you as a reviewer and open the review.

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot add @StanczakDominik as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@StanczakDominik added to the reviewers list!

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5772.

[fraukewiese]

@ranocha @StanczakDominik – many thanks for agreeing to review here! See you over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5772 where the actual review will take place.