[PRE REVIEW]: CL-PFU: A suite of R packages for energy conversion chain analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@MatthewHeun<!--end-author-handle-- (Matthew Heun) Repository: https://github.com/EnergyEconomyDecoupling/CL-PFU-JOSS-Paper Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: This submission covers several packages, each with its own current version. Editor: !--editor-->@timtroendle<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @abhishektiwari, @nmstreethran Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbe9eff46386919972f242307c4cdc70"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbe9eff46386919972f242307c4cdc70/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbe9eff46386919972f242307c4cdc70/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/bbe9eff46386919972f242307c4cdc70)

Author instructions

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

@MatthewHeun if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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=0.02 s (423.6 files/s, 95014.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         1             62              0            490
TeX                              1             56              4            294
R                                3             35             54            103
Rmd                              1             50            369             30
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             7            204            431            935
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2958

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5228359 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118413 may be a valid DOI for title: Developing a Multi-Regional Physical Supply Use Table framework to improve the accuracy and reliability of energy analysis
- 10.1016/s0360-5442(02)00089-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Exergy, power, and work in the US economy, 1900–1998
- 10.1021/es501217t may be a valid DOI for title: Divergence of Trends in US and UK Aggregate Exergy Efficiencies 1960–2010
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.082 may be a valid DOI for title: Understanding China’s past and future energy demand: An exergy efficiency and decomposition analysis
- 10.1016/0301-4215(76)90008-2 may be a valid DOI for title: The economics of energy analysis reconsidered
- 10.1016/s0360-5442(00)00070-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Society exergy analysis: a comparison of different societies
- 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.020 may be a valid DOI for title: The multi-factor energy input–output model
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.109 may be a valid DOI for title: A physical supply-use table framework for energy analysis on the energy conversion chain
- 10.21105/joss.02959 may be a valid DOI for title: The targets R package: A dynamic Make-like function-oriented pipeline toolkit for reproducibility and high-performance computing
- 10.1016/j.energy.2014.08.068 may be a valid DOI for title: Decomposition of useful work intensity: The EU (European Union)-15 countries from 1960 to 2009
- 10.1007/s41247-022-00096-z may be a valid DOI for title: The Contributions of Muscle and Machine Work to Land and Labor Productivity in World Agriculture Since 1800

INVALID DOIs

- 10.5518/1199 is INVALID

[editorialbot]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @MatthewHeun, I see that the repository you submitted just holds the paper and not the software itself. What is the repo URL for the software package?

[MatthewHeun]

Thanks for your message, @kyleniemeyer. The paper has two tables containing packages. Each package name is a hyperlink that brings you directly to the package that we're including in this paper. Let me know if you have further questions.

[MatthewHeun]

Also, it may be helpful to note a portion of my message to the editors:

In an email exchange in late July 2021, editor Afron Smith recommended that we create a separate repository for the paper, mentioning all of the individual packages in the manuscript. Thus, the paper is slightly longer than 1000 words. That said, we are willing to consider splitting into two papers upon the editor's advice.

I hope that helps.

[MatthewHeun]

I looked in the list of reviewers for the combination of R knowledge and keyword "energy." From that list, Nick Gorman (nick-gorman), Kalai Ramea (kramea), and Neeraj Bokde (neerajdhanraj) stand out as good referee candidates. Nick Gorman and Kalai Ramea have expertise in energy and climate, the application area of the software described in this paper. Neeraj Bodke has expertise in data cleaning, one of the important functions of the calculation pipelines available in the software described in this paper.

[MatthewHeun]

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

OK DOIs

• 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 is OK
• 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
• 10.5281/zenodo.5228359 is OK
• 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118413 may be a valid DOI for title: Developing a Multi-Regional Physical Supply Use Table framework to improve the accuracy and reliability of energy analysis
• 10.1016/s0360-5442(02)00089-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Exergy, power, and work in the US economy, 1900–1998
• 10.1021/es501217t may be a valid DOI for title: Divergence of Trends in US and UK Aggregate Exergy Efficiencies 1960–2010
• 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.082 may be a valid DOI for title: Understanding China’s past and future energy demand: An exergy efficiency and decomposition analysis
• 10.1016/0301-4215(76)90008-2 may be a valid DOI for title: The economics of energy analysis reconsidered
• 10.1016/s0360-5442(00)00070-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Society exergy analysis: a comparison of different societies
• 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.020 may be a valid DOI for title: The multi-factor energy input–output model
• 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.109 may be a valid DOI for title: A physical supply-use table framework for energy analysis on the energy conversion chain
• 10.21105/joss.02959 may be a valid DOI for title: The targets R package: A dynamic Make-like function-oriented pipeline toolkit for reproducibility and high-performance computing
• 10.1016/j.energy.2014.08.068 may be a valid DOI for title: Decomposition of useful work intensity: The EU (European Union)-15 countries from 1960 to 2009
• 10.1007/s41247-022-00096-z may be a valid DOI for title: The Contributions of Muscle and Machine Work to Land and Labor Productivity in World Agriculture Since 1800

I have added the above DOIs to the paper.

• 10.5518/1199 is INVALID

This DOI is not yet valid, because we are waiting to mint this DOI with the University of Leeds. The DOI has been assigned, though.

[MatthewHeun]

@kyleniemeyer : I hope you saw my response to your query a few weeks ago. Please let me know if there is anything else you need.

[MatthewHeun]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

The MIT license has now been added to the repository for the paper. All packages associated with this paper also use the MIT license.

[kyleniemeyer]

Thanks @MatthewHeun.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @timtroendle as editor

Hi @timtroendle, could you handle this submission?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[timtroendle]

Hi @kyleniemeyer, I am sorry but I am not able to handle this submission at this point.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @MatthewHeun, unfortunately we have very low editor availability right now, so I'm going to put this on our waitlist until someone can edit it.

[MatthewHeun]

Hi @MatthewHeun, unfortunately we have very low editor availability right now, so I'm going to put this on our waitlist until someone can edit it.

@kyleniemeyer Thanks for letting us know the situation with editor availability. Can you provide an indication of how long until the paper comes off the waitlist?

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @timtroendle, are you able to edit this submission now?

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @timtroendle is now the editor

[timtroendle]

:wave: @MatthewHeun , I am going to start to look for reviewers for your submission so we can begin reviewing it.

[MatthewHeun]

👋 @MatthewHeun , I am going to start to look for reviewers for your submission so we can begin reviewing it.

Thanks! Much appreciated.

[timtroendle]

:wave: @kramea, @nmstreethran & @abhishektiwari, 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/review_criteria.html

[abhishektiwari]

@timtroendle sure but I can only look into this paper in mid-Nov. Also this paper has multiple repos, so it will require some effort to review.

[timtroendle]

Thanks @abhishektiwari , that's fine. We mainly need your review on the level of the suite rather than the individual repos.

[abhishektiwari]

@timtroendle noted. assign me as reviewer.

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot assign @abhishektiwari as reviewer

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot add @abhishektiwari as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@abhishektiwari added to the reviewers list!

[nmstreethran]

@timtroendle yes, I'd be happy to review this submission

[timtroendle]

That's great. Thanks @nmstreethran !

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot add @nmstreethran as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@nmstreethran added to the reviewers list!

[timtroendle]

:wave: @neerajdhanraj & @j3r3m1, 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/review_criteria.html

[j3r3m1]

Thanks for proposing but I cannot do that. Hope you will find someone relevant and available soon enough

[timtroendle]

👋 @LSRathore & @milicag, 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/review_criteria.html

[timtroendle]

👋 @jordanperr & @SergeyYakubov, 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/review_criteria.html

[SergeyYakubov]

@timtroendle - sorry, I'm not familiar with R, so I wouldn't be a good fit

[timtroendle]

@abhishektiwari, considering you've indicated your availability from mid-November, I suggest we start this review now.

@abhishektiwari, @nmstreethran, please let me know should you think another reviewer is required, given the scope of this submission.

[timtroendle]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6057.