[PRE REVIEW]: carbonr: An R Package for Estimating Carbon-Equivalent Emissions

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@lilyclements@mengqi-z<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @hvwaldow, @zhenchun Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac6c3fc531d56a9d6915737fef68ff26"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac6c3fc531d56a9d6915737fef68ff26/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac6c3fc531d56a9d6915737fef68ff26/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ac6c3fc531d56a9d6915737fef68ff26)

Author instructions

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

@lilyclements 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 commented 3 months ago

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 commented 3 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (2744.7 files/s, 169837.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               66            230           1129           2205
Markdown                         2            105              0            395
Rmd                              2             84            213            117
YAML                             3             12              4             61
TeX                              1              2              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            74            433           1346           2800
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   264  lilyclements

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 806

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1163/9789004322714_cclc_2021-0172-549 may be a valid DOI for title: Climate Change and Health
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Green Theatre Index: Measuring the Effectiveness o...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Conversion Factors 2023

INVALID DOIs

- None

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:

kthyng commented 3 months ago

Hi @lilyclements and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:

[x] OSI-approved license
[x] Installation instructions
[x] Documentation
[x] Tests of some sort
[x] Check paper
[x] Substantial scholarly effort
[x] Clear research application/in scope

In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.

kthyng commented 3 months ago

@lilyclements

Do you have docs besides the readme?
since there is just one author, can you get rid of the "contributed equally" note in the paper?
the formatting in the paper examples doesn't look very good
this software looks interesting and useful but the paper doesn't seem to make an argument for being research software, which is the mission for JOSS and a requirement for being in scope. Is this a shift in argument you can make in the paper or would that be a fundamental shift in the software?

lilyclements commented 3 months ago

Hi @kthyng thanks for your feedback and for laying this out so easily to understand. I really appreciate this.

The documentation is just the readme. The readme is fairly large and so I can quite easily create a vignette to accompany it if the readme is a problem.
I have now removed the "contributed equally", apologies for that.
Thanks - I was trying to show the output as it would come from R directly, but I have now changed this to be much more aesthetically appeasing!
Great point, I didn't intend for it to come across that way. We definitely want to have it relevant to being research software. I have made some shifts in the paper: - namely in "Statement of need" and "Future goals".

I have updated the paper and pushed changes to GitHub.

kthyng commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Author (Lily Clements) is missing affiliation.

kthyng commented 3 months ago

The readme is fairly large and so I can quite easily create a vignette to accompany it if the readme is a problem.

Agreed that the readme is big and could be repurposed into some other documentation. I would suggest you do this because it would be better for your package but it will probably also come up during the course of your review. You can choose if/when you address it.

Can you take a look at that error?

lilyclements commented 3 months ago

@kthyng I have sorted the error now. It wasn't showing up on my end under Actions so I'm very sorry I didn't flag it sooner.

Thanks for the advice. I have reduced the readme and moved bits into a vignette now. Even if it weren't to come up over the course of the review, I think it makes it a bit more readable now. Thanks.

kthyng 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:

kthyng commented 3 months ago

@lilyclements Ok thanks. This has passed my checks. The next step is to get a topic editor to take this on and there's a chance they'll have some questions to make sure this is in scope. First, I will add this to the wait list to wait for an appropriate editor. Thanks for your patience.

lilyclements commented 3 months ago

@kthyng great news - thanks for your advice and patience!

kthyng commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot assign @mengqi-z as editor

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

Assigned! @mengqi-z is now the editor

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

Hello @lilyclements, I will be the topic editor for your submission. While I am looking for potential reviewers, could you please update the format of the code chunks in your paper.md file? For codes in the paper, you don't need to include {r, message = FALSE, warning = FALSE, eval=FALSE, include=TRUE} in each code chunk, as it will be printed out in the PDF. Please also ensure the layout of the code in the paper PDF is formatted well. Thank you.

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

👋 @hvwaldow @zhenchun Would any of you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We conduct our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

lilyclements commented 2 months ago

Hello @lilyclements, I will be the topic editor for your submission. While I am looking for potential reviewers, could you please update the format of the code chunks in your paper.md file? For codes in the paper, you don't need to include {r, message = FALSE, warning = FALSE, eval=FALSE, include=TRUE} in each code chunk, as it will be printed out in the PDF. Please also ensure the layout of the code in the paper PDF is formatted well. Thank you.

Thanks @mengqi-z, I have done this now.

hvwaldow commented 2 months ago

👋 @hvwaldow @zhenchun Would any of you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We conduct our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Hi @mengqi-z ! I'll happily review, but will be only able to start Monday next week.

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

👋 @hvwaldow @zhenchun Would any of you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We conduct our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Hi @mengqi-z ! I'll happily review, but will be only able to start Monday next week.

That's totally fine! Thank you @hvwaldow !

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot add @hvwaldow as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

@hvwaldow added to the reviewers list!

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

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:

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience Submitting author: @qepanna Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @Schuch666, @shubhamjain15, @hahsan1 Similarity score: 0.7072

The Climate Equity Reference Calculator Submitting author: @krueschan Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active) Reviewers: @mtobis Similarity score: 0.7032

bonsai_ipcc - a Python package for the calculation of national greenhouse gas inventories Submitting author: @mabudz Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active) Reviewers: @GISWLH, @PennyHow Similarity score: 0.7032

rfasst: An R tool to estimate air pollution impacts on health and agriculture Submitting author: @jonsampedro Handling editor: @dhhagan (Retired) Reviewers: @nanhung, @ibarraespinosa Similarity score: 0.6965

BCEA: An R Package for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Submitting author: @n8thangreen Handling editor: @ajstewartlang (Active) Reviewers: @rowlandseymour, @MikeLydeamore Similarity score: 0.6946

⚠️ 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 considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

zhenchun commented 2 months ago

I can review as well.

Zhenchun

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:25 AM The Open Journals editorial robot < @.***> wrote:

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6393 Submitting author: @qepanna Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @Schuch666, @shubhamjain15, @hahsan1 Similarity score: 0.7072

The Climate Equity Reference Calculator https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1273 Submitting author: @krueschan Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active) Reviewers: @mtobis Similarity score: 0.7032

bonsai_ipcc - a Python package for the calculation of national greenhouse gas inventories https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6123 Submitting author: @mabudz Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active) Reviewers: @GISWLH, @PennyHow Similarity score: 0.7032

rfasst: An R tool to estimate air pollution impacts on health and agriculture https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3820 Submitting author: @jonsampedro Handling editor: @dhhagan (Retired) Reviewers: @nanhung, @ibarraespinosa Similarity score: 0.6965

BCEA: An R Package for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4206 Submitting author: @n8thangreen Handling editor: @ajstewartlang (Active) Reviewers: @rowlandseymour, @MikeLydeamore Similarity score: 0.6946

⚠️ 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 considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6820#issuecomment-2192112931, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFURVISJTVDVM26D5LO34PDZJLTOTAVCNFSM6AAAAABITQYIQWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOJSGEYTEOJTGE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

I can review as well. Zhenchun

Perfect! Thank you for agreeing to review @zhenchun !

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot add @zhenchun as reviewer

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

@zhenchun added to the reviewers list!

mengqi-z commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot start review

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6932.

openjournals / joss-reviews

[PRE REVIEW]: carbonr: An R Package for Estimating Carbon-Equivalent Emissions #6820

Status