[REVIEW]: gcamreport: An R tool to process and standardize GCAM outputs

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@klau506@martinfleis<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @bpbond, @ibarraespinosa Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10960370

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/816fd8765945cd5f6fe6d8d1fefdde19"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/816fd8765945cd5f6fe6d8d1fefdde19/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/816fd8765945cd5f6fe6d8d1fefdde19/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/816fd8765945cd5f6fe6d8d1fefdde19)

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

@bpbond & @ibarraespinosa, 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 @martinfleis 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 @ibarraespinosa

📝 Checklist for @bpbond

editorialbot commented 9 months 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 9 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.02 s (248.8 files/s, 36179.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              1             29              0            290
Markdown                         3            150              0            235
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             5            180              4            543
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1496

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119153 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-022-01349-x is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7956229 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157926 is OK
- 10.1002/wcc.727 is OK
- 10.1038/nclimate3199 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
- 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1163/9789004322714_cclc_2021-0258-876 may be a valid DOI for title: Climate change 2021: the physical science basis
- 10.5194/gmd-15-2533-2022 may be a valid DOI for title: GCAM-USA v5. 3_water_dispatch: integrated modeling of subnational US energy, water, and land systems within a global framework
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac43df may be a valid DOI for title: Implications of different income distributions for future residential energy demand in the US
- 10.1073/pnas.1708290115 may be a valid DOI for title: An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

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

martinfleis commented 9 months ago

👋🏼 @klau506, @bpbond, @ibarraespinosa this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

All reviewers should create checklists with the JOSS requirements using the command @editorialbot generate my checklist. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues (and small pull requests if needed) on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5975 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks, feel free to start whenever it works for you. Please let me know if any of you require significantly more time at any point. We can also use editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@martinfleis) if you have any questions/concerns.

Thanks!

ibarraespinosa commented 9 months ago

Review checklist for @ibarraespinosa

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/bc3LC/gcamreport?
[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 (@klau506) 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?

martinfleis commented 8 months ago

Hi @bpbond, @ibarraespinosa, could you give us an indication of an expected timeline for the reviews? It would be great if we don't drag this over the holiday season. Thanks!

bpbond commented 8 months ago

Hi @martinfleis - apologies, I had a bunch of things that I needed to get through before turning to this. I'll get this done in the next week, if that works.

martinfleis commented 8 months ago

@bpbond Thanks! That is perfect.

ibarraespinosa commented 8 months ago

Hi

I will start next week

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 4:20 AM Martin Fleischmann @.***> wrote:

@bpbond https://github.com/bpbond Thanks! That is perfect.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5975#issuecomment-1818859504, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRM74DHGQV3B2TD6LODFQDYFM4GBAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6MES22GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMJYHA2TSNJQGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

bpbond commented 7 months ago

@martinfleis Sincere apologies -- obviously my original timeline didn't happen. But this week!

martinfleis commented 7 months ago

A gentle ping, @bpbond and @ibarraespinosa, that another week has passed :). I'd love to get the first round of reviews in by holidays. Thanks!

bpbond commented 7 months ago

Review checklist for @bpbond

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/bc3LC/gcamreport?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@klau506) 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?

bpbond commented 7 months ago

My apologies to @martinfleis and the authors for the delay in my review.

This is an interesting contribution with the potential to be a broadly useful resource and source of documentation. I have read the manuscript, and installed the software and examined its code; see specific suggestions about both referenced above. Broadly:

The manuscript is generally well written but needs many minor clarifications, and would be improved by a specific example and more-readable figure
I highly recommend including a sample awesomeProject.dat dataset so that users (and reviewers) can easily test out the software without running GCAM
Running R CMD CHECK on the code currently generates many notes, warnings, and errors. Maybe not everything can be solved, but at least the authors should follow basic best practices for packages with respect to namespaces and dependencies, completeness of documentation, etc.

I hope this is useful! I appreciate that the authors have done a lot of work, and am happy to clarify/answer questions if useful.

Conflict of interest: please note that I work in the same institute as two of the co-authors. I don't work with them directly, and don't feel conflicted in giving this review, but it's important to note transparently.

ibarraespinosa commented 7 months ago

Hello

I will start the review after agu as talked.

Best

klau506 commented 7 months ago

Dear @bpbond and @martinfleis,

Thank you for the detailed review and the constructive comments. The package has gained robustness and usability while being cleaned and optimized.

First, I would like to note that during the review process I have updated the package to meet the novelties of GCAM 7. The new version has updated the mappings and improved some minor issues found during these weeks: now, it is possible to create the reporting dataset for pre-defined variables and/or regions. Moreover, the package has more input checks, improves and includes new documentation pages, and fixes some internal minor bugs in some calculations. Some functions have also been renamed to make them more intuitive, and the usage of some functions have been simplified optimizing the code (Tagging also @ibarraespinosa).

Going through the specific issues from reviewer @bpbond, the following changes have been made:

In the manuscript (Manuscript suggestions issue):
- With the help of comments 1-10, the manuscript text has been improved.
- Following comment 5, the manuscript refers to a step-by-step tutorial and gives a short example of how to use the package.
- Following comment 11, the manuscript refers to a step-by-step tutorial on modifying the mapping files and reporting template. Due to its length and technical detail, we decided to include this description as an R vignette rather than an explanation embedded in the text. This vignette can be directly opened in the manuscript in line 100.
- Following comment 12, Figure 2 has been enlarged to improve readability.
- Following comment 13, a paragraph about performance has been added (line 118). It details the package running time and how it depends on the project creation time relaying on the rgcam package.
In the code (Code suggestions issue):
- Following comment 1, paste0 has been replaced with file.path to increase robustness.
- Following comment 2, = assignments have been replaced with for <- as recommended.
- Following comment 3, the package has been run through the styler package to ensure clear and consistent code style.
- Following comment 4, the rm(list = ls()) lines have been removed from the test blocks.
- Following comment 5, the library calls have been removed from the code.
- Following comment 6, the importFrom function has been added to the code, deleting the dplyr::-type namespace quantifiers to improve the readability and broaden the usage of the Roxygen package.
- Following comment 7, non-ASCII characters have been re-encoded.
- Following comment 7, errors, warnings, and notes have been reduced when using the R CMD Check. There are currently no errors or warnings, and only four notes.
- Following comment 8, some internal warnings have been removed to clean up the user output and improve the readability of the test results. However, the rgcam package, which produces the project file, has a lot of printed output that could not be removed. For instance,
```
About to perform query: collection()/scenario
About to perform query: collection()/scenario[ (@name='Reference' and @date='2023-4-12T16:34:34+01:00') ]/world/region/nationalAccount/account[@name = 'GDP']/node()
In Function: 1703243758723
After Function: 1703243758832
```

Thank you for your time and hope that the performed modifications are correct.

Best wishes, Clàudia

klau506 commented 6 months ago

Dear @martinfleis,

Thank you for managing the manuscript submission. During this time, we have made some additional improvements to the package in order to increase the robustness in collaboration with some researchers from the GCAM team. Since the review is still ongoing, and due to his relevant contribution, we would like to add a new co-author (Matthew Binsted) to the paper. Just wanted to confirm if is possible. Let us know otherwise.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Looking forward to address any new comment/suggestion that comes up in the review, Clàudia

martinfleis commented 6 months ago

@klau506 Yes, that is certainly fine. Just update the file with the paper.

klau506 commented 6 months ago

@martinfleis Thank you so much for your consideration.

martinfleis commented 6 months ago

Hi @ibarraespinosa, can you give us an update on the progress of your review? Thanks!

ibarraespinosa commented 6 months ago

Sure. I will finish heliio this week and I will start gcamrepprt

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 3:36 AM Martin Fleischmann @.***> wrote:

Hi @ibarraespinosa https://github.com/ibarraespinosa, can you give us an update on the progress of your review? Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5975#issuecomment-1895533410, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRM74AAYUPDJRGIRSBRR5TYO6SSDAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6MES22GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQOJVGUZTGNBRGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

martinfleis commented 6 months ago

@ibarraespinosa I wasn't aware you're also doing another review for JOSS. Take your time!

ibarraespinosa commented 6 months ago

well, both packages and publications are connected. Well, my plan is to finish helios this week and work on gcamreport next week.

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:40 AM Martin Fleischmann @.***> wrote:

@ibarraespinosa https://github.com/ibarraespinosa I wasn't aware you're also doing another review for JOSS. Take your time!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5975#issuecomment-1896188623, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRM74EMKD7VBP24CUGWGWTYO75GXAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6MES22GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQOJWGE4DQNRSGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

martinfleis commented 5 months ago

@ibarraespinosa a gentle ping to keep this on your radar ;).

ibarraespinosa commented 5 months ago

yeah, I will work on both reviews this week

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 4:08 AM Martin Fleischmann @.***> wrote:

@ibarraespinosa https://github.com/ibarraespinosa a gentle ping to keep this on your radar ;).

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5975#issuecomment-1921074608, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGRM74EFVWYH2SYQE7ZVAZDYRNZUJAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6MES22GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMRRGA3TINRQHA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

martinfleis commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot remind @ibarraespinosa in one week

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Reminder set for @ibarraespinosa in one week

ibarraespinosa commented 5 months ago

reviewing here https://github.com/bc3LC/gcamreport/issues/6

klau506 commented 4 months ago

Dear @ibarraespinosa and @martinfleis,

Thank you for your comments and performed validations. Find attached some details in relation to the opened issue:

Regarding the First example: it might be that either you did not clone the repository, you are not using the gcamreport project, or you do not have placed the example database in the correct folder. It might also be that, when extracting the database from the zip folder, an intermediate folder appeared and the database is located into examples/database_basexdb_ref/database_basexdb_ref instead of examples/database_basexdb_ref. I have written a few lines in the tutorials to make sure no one experiences this error.
I have checked, and shiny is already present in the DESCRIPTION file.
Regarding the Third example: it might be that either you did not clone the repository or you are not using the gcamreport project. I have written a few lines in the tutorials to make sure no one experiences this error.

In order to launch the shiny app, the package relies on some files (e.g., css files) that were difficult to include as package data. Thus, the repository clone is necessary to experience the full capabilities of the tool.

Thank you for your time and hope that the clarifications are okay,

Best wishes, Clàudia

martinfleis commented 4 months ago

@klau506 probably better to discuss the details and debugging in that issue @ibarraespinosa opened in your repo.

editorialbot commented 4 months ago

:wave: @ibarraespinosa, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

klau506 commented 3 months ago

Dear @martinfleis,

Following @ibarraespinosa's suggestion, I moved the paper directory to the main branch, so that it can be easily found. I was wondering if it is possible to modify the branch from where the manuscript is uploaded in this review. If not, I can also update the manuscript in the previous paper directory in the older branch.

Thank you, Clàudia

martinfleis commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot set gcam-v7.0 as branch

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Done! branch is now gcam-v7.0

martinfleis commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

klau506 commented 3 months ago

Thank you!!

klau506 commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.8132290 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157896 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119153 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-022-01349-x is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7956229 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157926 is OK
- 10.1002/wcc.727 is OK
- 10.1038/nclimate3199 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-2533-2022 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac43df is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1708290115 is OK
- 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: IAMC Webinar: Standardization of scenario data col...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: NGFS Climate Scenarios Data Set Version 3.0
- No DOI given, and none found for title: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global wa...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The next generation of scenarios for climate chang...
- 10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2 may be a valid DOI for title: A new scenario framework for climate change resear...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vuln...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The TRUST Principles for digital repositories
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Annex 2-metrics and methodology

INVALID DOIs

- None

klau506 commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.8132290 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7085661 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157896 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157940 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119153 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-022-01349-x is OK
- 10.1038/nature08823 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7956229 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157926 is OK
- 10.1002/wcc.727 is OK
- 10.1038/nclimate3199 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-2533-2022 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac43df is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1708290115 is OK
- 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: IAMC Webinar: Standardization of scenario data col...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vuln...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Annex II: Metrics & Methodology

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

klau506 commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.8132290 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7085661 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157896 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157940 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119153 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-022-01349-x is OK
- 10.1038/nature08823 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7956229 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1017/9781009157926 is OK
- 10.1002/wcc.727 is OK
- 10.1038/nclimate3199 is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-15-2533-2022 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ac43df is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1708290115 is OK
- 10.1145/2723872.2723882 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: IAMC Webinar: Standardization of scenario data col...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vuln...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Annex II: Metrics & Methodology

INVALID DOIs

- None

ibarraespinosa commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

ibarraespinosa commented 3 months ago

@martinfleis @klau506 I consider the manuscript and software accepted

klau506 commented 3 months ago

Dear @martinfleis,

I updated all the DOIs in the paper. Three references don't have a DOI, but URL is added. Thanks!

martinfleis commented 3 months ago

Hello @bpbond, I see that all points you raised in the repo seem to be resolved. Are there any other suggestions from your side? Thanks!

bpbond commented 3 months ago

@martinfleis No other suggestions from me. Thanks to the authors for their many improvements!

openjournals / joss-reviews