Frontiers in Climate: Democratizing Data - Paper Revisions

[cisaacstern]

We are still waiting for the reviews to come in from Frontiers.

In the meantime, noting so I don't forget that @koldunovn saw our preprint and helpfully pointed out that I'd used the wrong citation for the FESOM model. The output we have ingested into Pangeo Forge is in fact, FESOM2, for which the correct citation, per Nikolay, is

Danilov, S., Sidorenko, D., Wang, Q., and Jung, T.: The Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 765–789, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-765-2017, 2017.

I've just corrected this in Overleaf: https://www.overleaf.com/project/6103c3cb2cc6aad53b3bf81d

When the reviews land, I'll ping all of the paper co-authors here; but sparing everyone the @ for now.

[cisaacstern]

@rabernat, @jhamman, @rwegener2, @chiaral, @sharkinsspatial: reviews from Frontiers in Climate landed today.

I've added a file for each of the reviews, titled reviewer_1.txt and reviewer_2.txt, to our Overleaf. Note particularly the --- Q 5 --- section in each of these files, which contains the detailed review reports including specific requested changes.

We have 10 days to reply to the points raised in the reviews (i.e., our reply is due Fri Oct 22). I will be out of office Thurs Oct 21 & Fri Oct 22, therefore I will take responsibility for ensuring our reply is submitted on Wed Oct 20.

As such, if you would like to participate in the reply (all contributions welcome and appreciated!), please provide your comments/suggestion in-line using Overleaf Track Changes within the next week; i.e., on or before ~3pm PT Tues Oct 19.

[rabernat]

Here is how I approach paper revisions.

• [x] Make a new document that will be the "response to reviewers." Copy and paste all the reviewer comments into it.

• [x] Go through each comment one by one and write a response. Decide if you either...

  • agree with the comment, in which case the paper usually requires a specific change to be made. (This is the default response.) This list of changes becomes a checklist for the next step.
  • disagree with the comment. In this case, you write a polite rebuttal to the comment.

  This step can be done collaboratively / in parallel by delegating different people to respond to different parts of the review.

• [x] Now you have read all the reviewer comments and have a checklist of changes that need to be made. Go do them, checking each one off as you go. It can be helpful to add line number references in the reply document to provide evidence that you have addressed the comments.
• [ ] Finally, write an introduction paragraph to the reply document summarizing the changes that were made and thanking the reviewers for the extremely helpful suggestions.

[cisaacstern]

how I approach paper revisions.

☝️ Great idea, Ryan. All co-authors should now have edit access to this Google Doc which we can use to track our revisions.

In total, there are 21 points we'll need to respond to. At top of the Google Doc, you'll find a Summary table which describes briefly the subject of each point. You can see the details of that point, along with a response template, by clicking on the Point X links in the document outline, or by scrolling down to find it in-line.

If you'd like to work a particular point, simply claim it with your initials in the Summary table, as I have done for a number of points already. This way, others will know not to duplicate work on that point.

For points you've claimed, complete the in-line response template. Note that the response template and Point X header is located directly below the reviewer comment to which it corresponds.

[cisaacstern]

Note to all co-authors: the editor has granted us an extension. Our review responses are now due three weeks from today, on Tuesday November 9.

[cisaacstern]

👋 Paper team, we've now made Track Changes edits to our Overleaf which I believe address all of the review points enumerated in this Google Doc.

This is due this upcoming Tuesday, November 9. Sometime before Tuesday, I would appreciate if you could read through the document, and make any final edits (grammatical, content, etc.) using Track Changes. I will then do a final read-through and submission of our revised manuscript on Tuesday.

Thanks!

[alxmrs]

A few points of feedback on my last read through the paper:

• I was confused about what "FAIR" data referred to.
• I think the fsspec-reference-maker project was renamed to Kerchunk, though the former still appears in PyPi. I'm not sure what the most appropriate name would be – it's worth reviewing.

[rabernat]

I have reviewed the paper and response document. I have added a few minor suggestions. It looks great! Excellent job on managing the whole process Charles!

You have my ✅ to submit whenever you're ready.

[alxmrs]

• Line 276 reads parrelizable, it should be parallelizable.
• Line 540: are be --> This sentence confuses me, is this a mistake?
• In general, there is inconsistent capitalization for subsections.

[rabernat]

Alex--given the tight timeline, the best thing you could do at this point would be to make the changes yourself.

[chiaral]

I made one minor edit:

• line 325 used to be "Pangeo Forge's initial algorithms produce of Zarr" - I took "of" out

looks great - I think it is also very "approachable" for users. I couldn't follow the more data engineering part, but I appreciated the clear explanation of the steps involved in the process, how some are meant to read only metadata and prepare the target, and when the actual heavy lifting happens. It also helps people like me - probably a typical user - to learn some important technical language and learn more about data engineering/cataloging challenges.

[alxmrs]

Alex--given the tight timeline, the best thing you could do at this point would be to make the changes yourself.

Sorry about that -- I didn't think I had overleaf access (I do).

[cisaacstern]

I've just submitted our revised manuscript. Thanks to all for your generous and helpful contributions.

[cisaacstern]

"I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Pangeo Forge: Crowdsourcing Analysis-Ready, Cloud Optimized Data Production' has been approved for production and accepted for publication in Frontiers in Climate, section Climate Services. Proofs are being prepared for you to verify before publication."

😁 Great work everyone!

[jhamman]

Nice work all, especially @cisaacstern!

[alxmrs]

Congratulations, all!

One minor issue: My last name is misspelled in the accepted manuscript. How can I get this changed?

The email reads "Melrose" when it should read Merose.

[cisaacstern]

@alxmrs, yes I noticed that.

I'll correct it when Frontiers sends the proofs, along with any other typos (I'm know of at least one other).