[REVIEW]: carbonr: An R Package for Estimating Carbon-Equivalent Emissions about joss-reviews HOT 27 OPEN

There is one more typo in the paper.md file for the citation "Climate Change and Health". According to your paper.bib, the citation should be @Who2021, but it is currently cited as @WHO2023 in paper.md. As a result, the rendered PDF does not display the citation correctly.

@mengqi-z thanks and sorry for that one. I changed that when getting the DOI earlier and forgot to update accordingly. It should render now - thanks!

from joss-reviews.

@mengqi-z thanks! I have addressed the issues raised by @hvwaldow

from joss-reviews.

Hi @lilyclements & @mengqi-z,

as it stands @lilyclements has addressed the open issues. I need to do 2 more things: One is revisiting / checking the basic functionality and finally double-checking the references. I can't do this right now, because I'm absorbed in other urgent critical stuff. I am planning to finish the review by next week, provided not more issues crop up. Thanks for your patience.

from joss-reviews.

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 1.90  T=0.03 s (2809.6 files/s, 168239.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               66            230           1129           2205
Markdown                         2             81              0            212
Rmd                              3            122            286            125
YAML                             3             12              4             61
TeX                              1              2              0             22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            75            447           1419           2625
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   293	lilyclements

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 996

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

from joss-reviews.

License info:

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

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

👋 @lilyclements @hvwaldow @zhenchun, Welcome to the review thread for the paper. All communication regarding this submission will take place here.

Please start by reading the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.

Reviewers, please create your checklists outlining JOSS requirements. As you assess the submission, mark any items you believe have been satisfied. Additionally, refer to the JOSS reviewer guidelines linked at the top of this thread.

Our aim is to collaborate with authors to help them meet our criteria. Reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests directly on the software repository. When doing so, please tag #6932 in the issue to create a link to this thread, enabling easy tracking. Please feel free to post comments, questions, and suggestions as they arise, rather than waiting until the entire package is reviewed.

We target completing reviews within 4-6 weeks, but please initiate your review well in advance. JOSS reviews are iterative, and your early feedback will help us stay on schedule.

from joss-reviews.

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

@lilyclements Could you please add the missing DOIs in your paper.bib? Thank you.

from joss-reviews.

@mengqi-z thanks for this. I have updated to include DOIs in PR 23

For the final one (Greenhouse Gas Reporting), there is not a DOI. Publications, particularly on the GOV.UK site, often do not have DOIs. Is that OK?

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

@mengqi-z thanks for this. I have updated to include DOIs in PR 23

For the final one (Greenhouse Gas Reporting), there is not a DOI. Publications, particularly on the GOV.UK site, often do not have DOIs. Is that OK?

@lilyclements Thank you for fixing the DOIs. If a DOI does not exist for the report, that's fine.

There is one more typo in the paper.md file for the citation "Climate Change and Health". According to your paper.bib, the citation should be @WHO2021, but it is currently cited as @WHO2023 in paper.md. As a result, the rendered PDF does not display the citation correctly.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Review checklist for @hvwaldow

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/IDEMSInternational/carbonr?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  IDEMSInternational/carbonr#24
  IDEMSInternational/carbonr#27
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lilyclements) 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?
  There are bugs that interfere with the advertised functionality:
  • IDEMSInternational/carbonr#25
  • IDEMSInternational/carbonr#26
• 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
  IDEMSInternational/carbonr#28

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?
  IDEMSInternational/carbonr#29
• 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.

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

Hello @hvwaldow, 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

from joss-reviews.

👋 @zhenchun @hvwaldow - Just checking in to see how the review is going. Could you please provide a brief status update in this thread? There's no rush, but if you anticipate any delays, please let me know. Thanks!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

👋 @zhenchun @hvwaldow - Just checking in to see how the review is going. Could you please provide a brief status update in this thread? There's no rush, but if you anticipate any delays, please let me know. Thanks!

Hi @mengqi-z ! I just finished the first iteration of my checklist. There are four open issues, three very minor and one referring to a bug that needs fixing. I also provided an MR that could be merged to fix another bug. Once these issues have been addressed, I'll have a final look at paper & citations. So that looks pretty good to me 😄

from joss-reviews.

👋 @zhenchun @hvwaldow - Just checking in to see how the review is going. Could you please provide a brief status update in this thread? There's no rush, but if you anticipate any delays, please let me know. Thanks!

Hi @mengqi-z ! I just finished the first iteration of my checklist. There are four open issues, three very minor and one referring to a bug that needs fixing. I also provided an MR that could be merged to fix another bug. Once these issues have been addressed, I'll have a final look at paper & citations. So that looks pretty good to me 😄

Wonderful! Thank you @hvwaldow !

from joss-reviews.

👋 @zhenchun - I hope you're doing well. Could you please provide a brief update on the status of your reviews? If there are any delays or if you need more time, please let me know. Thanks!

@lilyclements - Once you've addressed each of the four issues raised by @hvwaldow, could you also share your status here? Thank you!

from joss-reviews.

Hi @lilyclements & @mengqi-z,

as it stands @lilyclements has addressed the open issues. I need to do 2 more things: One is revisiting / checking the basic functionality and finally double-checking the references. I can't do this right now, because I'm absorbed in other urgent critical stuff. I am planning to finish the review by next week, provided not more issues crop up. Thanks for your patience.

@hvwaldow Sounds good. Thank you for the update!

from joss-reviews.