Skip to content

/ joss-reviews

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

Jump to bottom

[REVIEW]: OpenOA: An Open-Source Codebase For Operational Analysis of Wind Farms #2171

Open
whedon opened this issue Mar 31, 2020 · 12 comments
Open

[REVIEW]: OpenOA: An Open-Source Codebase For Operational Analysis of Wind Farms #2171

whedon opened this issue Mar 31, 2020 · 12 comments
Assignees
@sjpfenninger @coroa @gschivley
Labels
review

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Mar 31, 2020 •
edited by gschivley

Submitting author: @jordanperr (Jordan Perr-Sauer)
Repository: https://github.com/NREL/OpenOA
Version: v1
Editor: @sjpfenninger
Reviewers: @gschivley, @coroa
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d635ef3c3784d49f6e81e07a0b35ff6b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d635ef3c3784d49f6e81e07a0b35ff6b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d635ef3c3784d49f6e81e07a0b35ff6b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d635ef3c3784d49f6e81e07a0b35ff6b)

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

@gschivley, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @sjpfenninger know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @gschivley

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

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • 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 (@jordanperr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • 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?

Review checklist for @coroa

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

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • 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 (@jordanperr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • 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?
@whedon whedon added the review label Mar 31, 2020
@whedon whedon mentioned this issue Mar 31, 2020
Closed
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Mar 31, 2020

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @gschivley it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Mar 31, 2020 

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1742-6596/1037/5/052021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1037/6/062009 may be missing for title: Understanding Biases in Pre-Construction Estimates

INVALID DOIs

- None
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Mar 31, 2020

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@sjpfenninger

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@sjpfenninger sjpfenninger commented Mar 31, 2020

@whedon add @coroa as reviewer
@whedon whedon assigned coroa and unassigned sjpfenninger Mar 31, 2020
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Mar 31, 2020

OK, @coroa is now a reviewer
@jstolarek jstolarek mentioned this issue Mar 31, 2020
Open
0 of 8 tasks complete
@gschivley

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@gschivley gschivley commented Mar 31, 2020

@sjpfenninger how strict is JOSS about requiring OSI approved licenses? It looks like the authors use a modified version of the BSD 3-clause. There are very minor changes to wording in the original 3 clauses, plus an extra clause:

  1. The entire corresponding source code of any redistribution, with or without modification, by a research entity,
    including but not limited to any contracting manager/operator of a United States National Laboratory, any
    institution of higher learning, and any non-profit organization, must be made publicly available under this license
    for as long as the redistribution is made available by the research entity.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Mar 31, 2020

We are very strict about this! We will not publish this submission with a modified license
@gschivley

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

@gschivley gschivley commented Mar 31, 2020

Thanks @danielskatz. Does that include minor modifications to the original clauses like those below?

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, the above government rights notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

The name of the copyright holder, contributors, the United States Government, the United States Department of Energy, or any of their employees may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

NREL has other repos that use a standard BSD 3-Clause so I would think they should be able to change this one, I just want to be clear on exactly how strict JOSS is about deviations in wording.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Mar 31, 2020

No deviations in wording are allowed. Any deviation is a different (and thus non-OSI-approved) license.
@jordanperr

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@jordanperr jordanperr commented Mar 31, 2020

@danielskatz @gschivley - I will bring this up with our team and see if we can accommodate this request. I imagine this license issue may have come up in the past for JOSS if they've published any work that was funded by the US government.
@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

@danielskatz danielskatz commented Mar 31, 2020

In other cases that I remember, labs have found a way to use a standard license.
@arfon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

@arfon arfon commented Mar 31, 2020 •
edited

@jordanperr - this is one example of another project making the change to a standard license (DoE/LBL funded work): #1370
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@sjpfenninger sjpfenninger

@coroa coroa

@gschivley gschivley

Labels
review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
7 participants
@whedon @sjpfenninger @gschivley @danielskatz @jordanperr @arfon @coroa
You can’t perform that action at this time.