[REVIEW]: unfold: removing the barriers to sharing and reproducing prospective life-cycle assessment databases about joss-reviews HOT 39 CLOSED

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

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.12 s (148.6 files/s, 26129.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           8            304            226           1520
YAML                             5             37              4            216
Markdown                         2             76              0            185
TeX                              1             19              0            129
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            395             50
INI                              1              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            18            436            625           2104
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 863

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112311 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 is OK
- 10.1111/jiec.12825 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00236 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-021-01974-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2019.100012 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.8b00261 is OK
- 10.1111/JIEC.13115 is OK
- 10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

from joss-reviews.

Review checklist for @MaximeAgez

Conflict of interest

• 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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/polca/unfold?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@romainsacchi) 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?

from joss-reviews.

Review checklist for @mfastudillo

Conflict of interest

• 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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/polca/unfold?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@romainsacchi) 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?

from joss-reviews.

potential dependencies issue with premise (polca/unfold#4)

from joss-reviews.

improve examples of use (polca/unfold#5)

from joss-reviews.

improve the statement of need (polca/unfold#6)

from joss-reviews.

@MaximeAgez : Thank you very much for your review so far. I see that you have checked almost all boxes in the Review checklist. Do you have any comments / questions / suggestions of improvement to the authors of this submission?

from joss-reviews.

@mfastudillo : Thank you very much for your review so far. I see that you have closed the three improvement issues you have brought up and have checked the whole Review Checklist. Are you overall satisfied with the submission now or do you see further need for improvement?

from joss-reviews.

@fraukewiese I passed my comments to the authors in these issues (polca/unfold#1, polca/unfold#2, polca/unfold#3) and the changes made answered my comments.

I am satisfied with the submission. However, I do not have the necessary expertise on testing, so I left the cell empty.

from joss-reviews.

Hello @fraukewiese , yes I am satisfied.

I tried myself the unit tests and they work fine.

from joss-reviews.

Thank you very much for your thorough review @mfastudillo and @MaximeAgez !

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check references

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112311 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 is OK
- 10.1111/jiec.12825 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00236 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-021-01974-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2019.100012 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.8b00261 is OK
- 10.1111/JIEC.13115 is OK
- 10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

from joss-reviews.

@romainsacchi : At this point could you:

• Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
• Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
• Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

from joss-reviews.

@fraukewiese, thank you.
software released under tag: v.1.0.5.a
Zenodo archive: https://zenodo.org/record/7777718
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7777717

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot set v1.0.5.a as version

from joss-reviews.

Done! version is now v1.0.5.a

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7777717 as archive

from joss-reviews.

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7777717

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot recommend-accept

from joss-reviews.

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112311 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 is OK
- 10.1111/jiec.12825 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00236 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-021-01974-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2019.100012 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.8b00261 is OK
- 10.1111/JIEC.13115 is OK
- 10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

👋 @openjournals/pe-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4081, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

from joss-reviews.

Hi @fraukewiese, thanks. The pdf proof looks good to me.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot accept

from joss-reviews.

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

from joss-reviews.

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Sacchi
  given-names: Romain
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1440-0905"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777717
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Sacchi
    given-names: Romain
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1440-0905"
  date-published: 2023-03-29
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05198
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 83
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5198
  title: "unfold: removing the barriers to sharing and reproducing
    prospective life-cycle assessment databases"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05198"
  volume: 8
title: "`unfold`: removing the barriers to sharing and reproducing
  prospective life-cycle assessment databases"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

from joss-reviews.

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

from joss-reviews.

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

from joss-reviews.

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#4089
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05198
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

from joss-reviews.

Dear @fraukewiese, @MaximeAgez and @mfastudillo, thank you for your work and time.

from joss-reviews.

Congratulations @romainsacchi on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @mfastudillo and @MaximeAgez for reviewing this submission, and @fraukewiese for editing.

from joss-reviews.

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05198/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05198)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05198">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05198/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05198/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05198

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

from joss-reviews.