[PRE REVIEW]: pvlib python: 2023 project update

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@kandersolar<!--end-author-handle-- (Kevin Anderson) Repository: https://github.com/pvlib/pvlib-python Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: v0.10.1 Editor: !--editor-->@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @EwaGomez, @phoebe-p Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/917bf2baea14bc35555392ff7b4b0bcb"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/917bf2baea14bc35555392ff7b4b0bcb/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/917bf2baea14bc35555392ff7b4b0bcb/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/917bf2baea14bc35555392ff7b4b0bcb)

Author instructions

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

@kandersolar 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=0.79 s (335.1 files/s, 113433.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         127           8137          16775          24234
JSON                             9             23              0          20815
reStructuredText                84           1483           1522           3886
Jupyter Notebook                 8              0           8998           1621
Markdown                        13            173              0            738
YAML                            13             52             67            437
TeX                              2             30              0            296
make                             1             28              6            146
Cython                           2             16              0             57
DOS Batch                        1             10              3             33
JavaScript                       1              7             34             18
CSS                              2              2              6             16
HTML                             1              3              0             16
TOML                             1              2              7             13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           265           9966          27418          52326
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/PVSC.2014.6925501 is OK
- 10.1016/j.solener.2017.04.031 is OK
- 10.1109/PVSC.2015.7356005 is OK
- 10.1109/PVSC.2016.7749755 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1400857 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1401378 is OK
- 10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.056 is OK
- 10.1109/PVSC.2016.7749837 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1403238 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4964363 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1246152 is OK
- 10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318225 is OK
- 10.1109/PVSC.2016.7750303 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 790

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PyPVRPM: Photovoltaic Reliability and Performance Model in Python Submitting author: @brandons209 Handling editor: @jgostick (Active) Reviewers: @blthayer, @SarthakJariwala Similarity score: 0.8538

pvpumpingsystem: A Python package for modeling and sizing photovoltaic water pumping systems Submitting author: @tylunel Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @samuelduchesne, @robinroche Similarity score: 0.8518

bifacial_radiance: a python package for modeling bifacial solar photovoltaic systems Submitting author: @shirubana Handling editor: @melissawm (Active) Reviewers: @wholmgren, @dalonsoa, @usethedata Similarity score: 0.8415

SunPy: A Python package for Solar Physics Submitting author: @Cadair Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @mwcraig, @ceb8 Similarity score: 0.8399

BifacialSimu: Holistic Simulation of large-scale Bifacial Photovoltaic Systems Submitting author: @EwaGomez Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @sidihamady, @kanderso-nrel Similarity score: 0.8329

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @rkurchin as editor

Hi @rkurchin, could you edit this submission?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rkurchin is now the editor

[kandersolar]

@rkurchin thanks for editing this submission! FYI this submission will be the second JOSS paper about pvlib. The first was published in 2018 (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/884). This paper describes the substantial project growth over those ~5 years.

Looks like I need to tweak the submission file locations so that the build bot locates the correct set of files (right now it is using the files from the original 2018 paper). One moment...

[kandersolar]

@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now joss-paper

[kandersolar]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PyPVRPM: Photovoltaic Reliability and Performance Model in Python Submitting author: @brandons209 Handling editor: @jgostick (Active) Reviewers: @blthayer, @SarthakJariwala Similarity score: 0.8777

pvpumpingsystem: A Python package for modeling and sizing photovoltaic water pumping systems Submitting author: @tylunel Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired) Reviewers: @samuelduchesne, @robinroche Similarity score: 0.8588

BifacialSimu: Holistic Simulation of large-scale Bifacial Photovoltaic Systems Submitting author: @EwaGomez Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active) Reviewers: @sidihamady, @kanderso-nrel Similarity score: 0.8519

bifacial_radiance: a python package for modeling bifacial solar photovoltaic systems Submitting author: @shirubana Handling editor: @melissawm (Active) Reviewers: @wholmgren, @dalonsoa, @usethedata Similarity score: 0.8474

SunPy: A Python package for Solar Physics Submitting author: @Cadair Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @mwcraig, @ceb8 Similarity score: 0.8403

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[rkurchin]

👋 @brandons209, @EwaGomez, @shirubana, would 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

[EwaGomez]

@rkurchin Yes, I would be happy to review this submission as I use the package on a weekly basis.

[rkurchin]

@EwaGomez, great! Just to check though, you don't have any conflict of interest with the authors?

[EwaGomez]

@rkurchin No, there is no conflict of interest. The library is just closely related to my research topic, so I use it a lot. As you know, the author was recently a reviewer of my JOSS publication.

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @EwaGomez as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@EwaGomez added to the reviewers list!

[shirubana]

Hi @rkurchin not sure if I qualify or if its a COI to review this as I teach the tutorials for pvlib with the authors. I have a PR open that's been sort of abandoned by me but often tagged on the discussions and chime on google-group threads as well.

[rkurchin]

Yeah that's probably a COI, thanks for letting me know.

[rkurchin]

👋 @dalonsoa, would 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

[dalonsoa]

Hi @rkurchin , many thanks for the invite. Unfortunately, I cannot assume the review of this at the moment. If you need a suggestion for a possible reviewer, let me know and I'll point to to someone (also JOSS reviewer in the past).

[rkurchin]

@dalonsoa, very open to suggestions, thanks!

[dalonsoa]

Then I'd suggest @phoebe-p

[rkurchin]

Pinging @phoebe-p, would 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

[rkurchin]

👋 @enricgrau, would 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

[phoebe-p]

@rkurchin apologies for the delay, but I would be happy to review this submission (no conflicts of interest).

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot add @phoebe-p as reviewer

Thanks!

[editorialbot]

@phoebe-p added to the reviewers list!

[rkurchin]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5994.