-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: GOBLIN Lite: A National Land Balance Model for Assessment of Climate Mitigation Pathways for Ireland #6732
Comments
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:
|
Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:
|
Software report:
Commit count by author:
|
Paper file info: 📄 Wordcount for ✅ The paper includes a |
License info: 🟡 License found: |
👋 @colmduff, @david-yannick, and @varsha2509, 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 #6732 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. |
@mengqi-z, it doesn't seem to when I generate the paper. It does link to the sources correctly, but its very difficult to tell which paper is which within the text. The pdf does seem to be outputting correctly now, so I am not sure if its still causing an issue? It is a bit strange, as it didn't seem to have an issue with 2020a, just 2020b |
@colmduff, The reason it didn't work could be because the author lists from two papers are not exactly the same (In your case, the first four authors are the same, but the rest are not). You could try adding the |
@mengqi-z, Okie Dokie, I have changed this now. Should be fine I think. I just used the standard formatting and it lists the authors up to the point of departure. |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
👋 @david-yannick, and @varsha2509, Thank you for reviewing this paper. Could you please update me on your review progress? Thanks! |
@david-yannick, @varsha2509 - I'm following up to get a sense of how the reviews are going. Could each of you provide a brief update on your progress? There's no rush, but if you anticipate any delays, please let me know. Thank you! |
Hi @mengqi-z ! I will be working on it over the next week or so, I have had other projects going on. Sorry for the delayed reply! |
Hi @mengqi-z - I'm working on the review and plan to submit mine over the next week. Thank you! |
Review checklist for @david-yannickConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @varsha2509Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
I am complete with my review, here are a few questions/comments I have regarding the paper Paper.md
|
Hello @david-yannick, here are the things you can ask me to do:
|
Thanks a million for your time an effort on this. Apologies for my late response, I have had some revision deadlines on another paper. To answer your questions:
Thanks again for your time and effort on this, it is greatly appreciated. |
Just a quick note on edits, I will make all changes together once both reviews are in. Thanks a million! |
Hello. I've completed my review and here are my comments. Overall, well written paper and code is well structured. Proposed some comments/suggestions below to improve code readability.
Minor comments on code:
The authors should consider breaking down
LCA_processing.py - similar comment as above, there seems to be some redundant code in some of the .py files that can be removed. Sorry for the delay in getting my comments to you. Let me know if you have questions. |
Hi @varsha2509 Thanks a million for your detailed feedback. I will try to repond to the comments here, I will post the combined changes I have made in a seperate post before I resubmit the paper. To make things a little easier to follow, I am just going to number the response to correspond to the order in which you gave feedback:
Minor comments: Thank you for taking the time to go through the code in such detail, it is very much appreciated. I will look to stream line some functions further in the future, this is an ongoing process. With regards to redundant code, I do realise that there is not a specific need to have these variables here. But, it is a personal choice on my part, just to be explicit and seeing variables I am dealing with right in front of me just helps me organise my thoughts a little better. I realise this may offend a developer here and there, but, I am willing to run that risk if it helps me with my workflow. Thank you again for all your hard work on this, your feedback is very much appreciated. |
Hi @mengqi-z @varsha2509 @david-yannick Thank you all for your help and engagement with this. Its very much appreciated. I have responded to each reviewer individually, I just want to summarise the changes to the document here in a consolidated way.
|
@editorialbot generate pdf |
👋 @varsha2509 @david-yannick - It looks like we are making great progress! Could you provide a brief update in this thread on how things are going? Did @colmduff address all your comments? If so, please make sure to check off the items that are satisfied and let me know your decisions on the paper. Thank you! |
Submitting author: @colmduff (Colm Duffy)
Repository: https://github.com/GOBLIN-Proj/goblin_lite
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.3.4
Editor: @mengqi-z
Reviewers: @david-yannick, @varsha2509
Archive: Pending
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
@david-yannick & @varsha2509, 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 @mengqi-z 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 @david-yannick
📝 Checklist for @varsha2509
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: