[REVIEW]: An open-source Python-based model to represent the charging flexibility and vehicle-to-grid potential of electric vehicles in energy systems models: venco.py

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@fabmio<!--end-author-handle-- (Fabia Miorelli) Repository: https://gitlab.com/dlr-ve/esy/vencopy/vencopy Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: 1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@rkurchin<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @janikmu, @nightlark Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fbed3a5b8586c4c029d8fb33778f5bf8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fbed3a5b8586c4c029d8fb33778f5bf8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fbed3a5b8586c4c029d8fb33778f5bf8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fbed3a5b8586c4c029d8fb33778f5bf8)

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

@janikmu & @nightlark, 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 @rkurchin 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 @janikmu

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.09 s (870.7 files/s, 230223.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              7              7              7           5958
Python                          37           1101           1977           4703
CSV                              1              0              0           2125
YAML                             4             24             56           2070
reStructuredText                20            437            240            777
TeX                              1             28              1            216
Markdown                         3             60              0            215
TOML                             1             14              0             50
CSS                              1              2              2             17
HTML                             1              6              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            76           1679           2283          16133
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   274  Miorelli
   239  Fabia Miorelli
   216  wulf_ni
    70  Niklas Wulff
    48  Wulff
    30  Miorelli, Fabia
    25  butt_pa
    14  Wulff, Niklas
    12  Lisa Jagmann
    11  Butte
     5  Benjamin Fuchs
     3  Mitra
     1  Hedda Gardian
     1  Jagmann
     1  hc

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2023.102029 is OK
- 10.1016/j.egyai.2021.100074 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2311.05930 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.188 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-021-00932-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.07.001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.033 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2020.100028 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118676 is OK
- 10.3390/en15186575 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05041 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Documentatie onderzoek Onderweg in Nederland 2019 ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: National Travel Survey: England 2019
- No DOI given, and none found for title: La mobilité locale et longue distance des Français...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SIMBEV documentation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: UrMoDigital project description
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DriVe2X project description
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SEDOS project description
- No DOI given, and none found for title: En4U project description
- No DOI given, and none found for title: BENiVer project description
- No DOI given, and none found for title: EVer project description
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mobilität in Deutschland - MiD Ergebnisbericht
- No DOI given, and none found for title: REMix: A GAMS-based framework for energy system op...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Open Energy Family - Open Energy Platform (OEP)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System (TIMES) - a bott...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1413

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[janikmu]

Review checklist for @janikmu

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://gitlab.com/dlr-ve/esy/vencopy/vencopy?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@fabmio) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• [ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• [ ] 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.
• [ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• [ ] 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

• [ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [ ] 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

• [ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• [ ] 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

• [ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [ ] 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?
• [ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• [ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [ ] 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?

[rkurchin]

@openjournals/dev any help here on why it's not picking up the BSD 3-clause license?