[REVIEW]: A Module for Calibrating Impact Functions in the Climate Risk Modeling Platform CLIMADA #6755
Comments
editorialbot
added
review
Track: 5 (DSAIS)
|
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: For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type: |
|
Software report: Commit count by author: |
|
|
Paper file info: 📄 Wordcount for ✅ The paper includes a |
|
License info: 🟡 License found: |
|
@sunt05, @naingeet thank you very much for agreeing to review this submission. Your expertise is very valuable. With the opening of this issue, the official review process can now start. A good starting point is to create the personal review checklist by commenting Please note that we ask to review the additions made via the PR CLIMADA-project/climada_python#692 as they reflect the new additions and the contents of the submitted manuscript (see this comment). You might want to checkout the particular branch The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time. Please feel free to ping me (@observingClouds) if you have any questions/concerns. |
|
@peanutfun thank you for your submission. The review will now start. Please check back regularly and address the reviewers comments and issues as they appear to help us make the review process as interactive and effective as possible. Could you in the meantime try to fix the missing DOIs mentioned above and alternatively provide a URL if a DOI is not available. Thank you! |
Review checklist for @sunt05Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
|
@observingClouds We were able to replace one work marked with "missing DOIs" with a suitable publication with a DOI. For the rest, we provide URLs:
|
|
@sunt05 @naingeet We are looking forward to receiving your feedback on the code and the paper draft in CLIMADA-project/climada_python#692. If you have any trouble installing CLIMADA or executing the provided tutorial Jupyter script, please let us know. |
|
Thanks @peanutfun for the nice work! Could you please address this issue while I was testing your notebook? |
|
Congratulations to the CLIMADA team on delivering this excellent work, which I believe will be very useful to the climate risk community. After trying out the new development, I have only two minor points for the climada team to consider:
Slightly off-topic, while I understand CLIMADA is a comprehensive codebase with various dependencies, I believe the dependency structure could be simplified for easier installation. Even as an experienced Python user and developer, it took me a while to get it working. New users interested in climate risk analysis rather than Python development might struggle even more. Also, since the complexity largely comes from geospatial analysis packages, I'd suggest focusing on climate risk analysis and leaving the geospatial part to more experienced users. |
|
@observingClouds Thanks for inviting me to this review. Please see my comments above. Looking forward to future collaborations. |
|
@sunt05 thank you very much for your comments. Depending on the response of @peanutfun I might ask you one more time to look through any potential edits. |
|
@peanutfun please have a look at the last comments of sunt05. Please improve the demo notebook accordingly and improve the user experience when installing CLIMADA. I expect the reviews from @naingeet also coming in this week, but please work in the meantime on above's issues to help the interactivity of the review process. Cheers! |
|
@sunt05 Thank you for your review. I am very glad about your positive feedback. We will add a quickstart section to the tutorial, as you suggested, in the next few days. I understand that the setup for the development version of Climada is quite involved, especially if you have a working setup that does not rely on Conda. Unfortunately, this is a somewhat historical problem we cannot resolve easily. First, we think that geospatial analysis combined with the comparably simple task of impact calculation is the main advantage of Climada, and we would not want to make it optional. Second, the trouble comes from a few C(++)-library dependencies that are used for some submodules of Climada. We plan to move these to the adjacent repository https://github.com/CLIMADA-project/climada_petals, see CLIMADA-project/climada_python#729. Our goal is to make the "Core" https://github.com/CLIMADA-project/climada_python repository and all its dependencies installable only via Pip, which is currently not the case. However, we decided to update these submodules before moving, as they have grown outdated, and are waiting for feedback from collaborators, see CLIMADA-project/climada_python#811. Third, our current module import patterns do not allow well for optional dependencies. Also, testing (combinations of) optional dependencies is a larger task that would overburden our current resources. Finally, we provide a conda-forge package for all Climada releases. We hope this simplifies installation for inexperienced users enough to get started with Climada easily: Of course, they then cannot switch to a development or feature branch, as you were required to. I hope this clarifies why we currently do not see an easy, quick way to improve the user experience regarding development version installation. We are well aware of the issue, and resolving it is a somewhat long-term goal for us. Still, if you encountered some pitfalls our installation instructions do not cover, we would gladly incorporate any suggestions for improvement. |
|
@peanutfun thank you for your extended reply. Do I understand it correctly that all dependencies will be easily installable via conda once the branch that is the base of this review will be merged? |
|
@observingClouds We are merging all our feature branches into an unstable The calibration module under review will become available in the conda-forge package when we create a new release, merging |
Review checklist for @naingeetConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
|
I finished my review on the code and the paper draft in CLIMADA-project/climada_python#692. Installation proceeded as outlined in advanced instructions for installation and functionally were correctly implemented. The demo notebook code was quite comprehensive and easy to follow. |
|
@editorialbot set main as branch |
|
Done! branch is now main |
@observingClouds The archive we created (10.5281/zenodo.12794729) IS Climada v5.0.0. The original record 10.5281/zenodo.4598943 is managed by an automated Zenodo webhook, which unfortunately failed for the v5.0.0 release. We are not sure how to update the record without making another GitHub release after updating the webhook. Since the original record has a different author list than this publication, we decided for a separate record to comply with the author tasks after review. The new archive lists the original Zenodo record of Climada under "Related Works" as "Is version of". Please let me know how to proceed. |
|
@peanutfun Just to clarify, 10.5281/zenodo.12794729 and the release that should have been done with the GitHub webhook would have been identical from the code perspective and just differ from the metadata? |
|
@observingClouds exactly |
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
|
@editorialbot check references |
|
|
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
|
👋 @openjournals/dsais-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#5683, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
editorialbot
added
the
recommend-accept
|
@editorialbot generate pdf 🔍 checking out the following:
|
|
@editorialbot accept This one was very clean! Thanks to all for making my job very easy! |
|
|
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: CITATION.cff
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. |
|
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
|
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
|
🥳 Congratulations on your new publication @peanutfun! Many thanks to @observingClouds for editing and @naingeet and @sunt05 for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts. Please consider becoming a reviewer for JOSS if you are not already: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join |
|
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets: 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:
|
|
@peanutfun also from my side congratulations on this publication. Thank you @sunt05 and @naingeet for reviewing and providing your expertise! |
|
@naingeet congrats on your first review for JOSS 🎉 I strongly encourage you to sign up as a reviewer and join our community. |
|
It was a great experience. Thank you @observingClouds
<https://github.com/observingClouds> for the opportunity! I signed up as a
reviewer , looking forward to reviewing more software and papers in the
geophysical and climate science field. :)
regards,
-Geeta Nain
…On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:11 AM Hauke Schulz ***@***.***> wrote:
@naingeet <https://github.com/naingeet> congrats on your first review for
JOSS 🎉 I strongly encourage you to sign up as a reviewer
<https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/> and join our community.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6755 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALDA3SBYEQIX3KIJSWJ3J63ZOJRLLAVCNFSM6AAAAABHY6XVCCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENJSHE3TAOJRHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@observingClouds @sunt05 @naingeet On behalf of all authors, I thank you for your effort and for supporting this publication! 🙌 |
Submitting author: @peanutfun (Lukas Riedel)
Repository: https://github.com/CLIMADA-project/climada_python
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 5.0.0
Editor: @observingClouds
Reviewers: @sunt05, @naingeet
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.12794729
Status
Status badge code:
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
@sunt05 & @naingeet, 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:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @observingClouds 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 @sunt05
📝 Checklist for @naingeet
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: