[REVIEW]: PyroRL: A Reinforcement Learning Environment for Wildfire Evacuation

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@cpondoc@mikemahoney218<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @SamTov, @shahchiragh Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9f135b1c36e531bed3d840077b059f2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9f135b1c36e531bed3d840077b059f2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9f135b1c36e531bed3d840077b059f2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b9f135b1c36e531bed3d840077b059f2)

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

@SamTov & @shahchiragh, 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 @mikemahoney218 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 @SamTov

📝 Checklist for @shahchiragh

editorialbot commented 2 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 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1086.8 files/s, 143954.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          14            383            530           1873
Markdown                         9            200              0            501
XML                              1              0              0            317
TeX                              1             14              0            147
YAML                             5              7              4            111
JavaScript                       1              1              0             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            31            605            534           2967
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   125  cpondoc
    34  joey-obrien
    10  JosephGuman
     1  Chris Pondoc

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.8127026 is OK
- 10.2737/INT-GTR-194 is OK
- 10.1002/eap.1898 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.07915 is OK
- 10.3389/FICT.2018.00006 is OK
- 10.2514/1.G004106 is OK
- 10.3389/ffgc.2022.734330 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3055651 is OK
- 10.1111/risa.12944 is OK
- 10.2514/1.g004106 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gym Cellular Automata
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gym Forest Fire
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Algorithms for decision making
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Stable-Baselines3: Reliable Reinforcement Learning...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1075

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

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

mikemahoney218 commented 2 months ago

👋🏼 @cpondoc, @SamTov, @shahchiragh this is the review thread for the paper. Just about all of our communications will happen here from now on :smile:

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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 pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6739 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 4 weeks. Please let me know if you require some more time.

Please feel free to ping me (@mikemahoney218) if you have any questions/concerns!

mikemahoney218 commented 2 months ago

Just as a quick note: I'm going to be traveling and generally less available until May 20th. I'll still be checking GitHub and email intermittently, but apologies if it takes me a bit longer to respond than usual!

cpondoc commented 2 months ago

This is great to hear! Thank you so much for all of your help @mikemahoney218! Our team will be here to answer any questions! :)

SamTov commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @SamTov

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/sisl/PyroRL?
[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 (@cpondoc) 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?

SamTov commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

cpondoc commented 1 month ago

Hey @SamTov! Thanks for the comments -- we'll be sure to fix up the related work and also investigate the behavior on map_gen_example.py by the end of this week. Let us know if you need anything else from our end!

SamTov commented 1 month ago

@cpondoc Thanks for taking care of it. Nothing more from my side. It's a great package!

mikemahoney218 commented 1 month ago

Thank you so much for your review, @SamTov !

@shahchiragh , I wanted to give this a quick bump now that we're about three weeks into the review window, and ask how your review is progressing/if you're still expecting to complete your reviews on the original timeline.

Just as a reminder, the first step in the review is to post @editorialbot generate my checklist as the start of a new comment in this thread, which will generate a review checklist for you to use!

shahchiragh commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @shahchiragh

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/sisl/PyroRL?
[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 (@cpondoc) 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?

shahchiragh commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Hello @shahchiragh, 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

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

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

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

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

# 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

shahchiragh commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.8127026 is OK
- 10.2737/INT-GTR-194 is OK
- 10.1002/eap.1898 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2010.07915 is OK
- 10.3389/FICT.2018.00006 is OK
- 10.2514/1.G004106 is OK
- 10.3389/ffgc.2022.734330 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3055651 is OK
- 10.1111/risa.12944 is OK
- 10.2514/1.g004106 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gym Cellular Automata
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gym Forest Fire
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Algorithms for decision making
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Stable-Baselines3: Reliable Reinforcement Learning...

INVALID DOIs

- None

shahchiragh commented 1 month ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

shahchiragh commented 1 month ago

@mikemahoney218 Thank you for the reminder, and I apologize for the delayed start. I began the review last week but didn't complete it until today. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with regarding the review. Thanks!

mikemahoney218 commented 1 month ago

Thank you @shahchiragh ! ~One quick question -- can you verify that you installed the software and got it to run, etc? I'm asking because it's a bit unusual to have reviews not require any issues being opened on the software repo. It happens occasionally, but just want to check in to make sure the process was clear to everyone given the circumstances. Thank you!~

mikemahoney218 commented 1 month ago

Whoops -- I see https://github.com/sisl/PyroRL/issues/14 now; I didn't earlier. Apologies, and thank you so much for your review!

mikemahoney218 commented 1 month ago

Thank you so much @shahchiragh and @SamTov ! @cpondoc , if I'm following everything correctly, I believe you've got a few open issues on the repo to address from these reviews -- please comment in this thread and ping me once you've addressed reviewer comments!

mikemahoney218 commented 4 weeks ago

@cpondoc , are you able to provide an update on how addressing reviewer issues are going?

cpondoc commented 2 weeks ago

Hey @mikemahoney218! Apologies about taking a while to respond: our entire team just finished up finals, graduation, and all the last parts of moving out for senior year, so we are just now getting to the edits. Rest assured: we're triaging through all of them and can message back in a couple of days. Thanks again!

mikemahoney218 commented 1 week ago

@cpondoc , any chance you have an update on how edits are going?

mikemahoney218 commented 11 hours ago

@cpondoc wanted to reach back out again to see how edits are progressing

openjournals / joss-reviews