Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: hectorui: A web-based interactive scenario builder and visualization application for the Hector climate model

[whedon]

Submitting author: @evanoffPNNL (Jason Evanoff)
Repository: https://github.com/JGCRI/hectorui/
Version: 1.1.0
Editor: @kthyng
Reviewer: @marvinjonathcn, @tscheypidi
Archive: Pending

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41f3715537e7e5af5ecedcb9c123c8c4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41f3715537e7e5af5ecedcb9c123c8c4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41f3715537e7e5af5ecedcb9c123c8c4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41f3715537e7e5af5ecedcb9c123c8c4)

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

@marvinjonathcn & @tscheypidi, 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 @kthyng 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 ✨

Review checklist for @marvinjonathcn

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 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 (@evanoffPNNL) 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

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 @tscheypidi

Conflict of interest

• [x] 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

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

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@evanoffPNNL) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] 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

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

• [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [x] 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]

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

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

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:

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

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5194/gmd-8-939-2015 is OK
- 10.5194/bg-13-4329-2016 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0223542 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019 is OK
- 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.026 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y is OK
- 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI3-17 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[kthyng]

@marvinjonathcn, @tscheypidi: this is where the actual review takes places. Please look through reviewer docs to see how the review process works, and look through the checklist above too. As issues arise in the review process, open an issue per comment in the submission repo on github and link back to this issue. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions about how it all works especially since it is a little unusual!

[tscheypidi]

@evanoffPNNL, I am just checking the list of authors and did not find all mentioned authors in the commit history of hectorui. Could you please clarify how Stephanie Waldhoff, Abigail Snyder and Corinne Hartin contributed to the Software?

[evanoffPNNL]

Hey Jan, here's the contributor list:
Stephanie Waldhoff - project manager
Abigail Snyder - wrote software behind the pattern based downscaled maps
Corinne Hartin - creator of original Hector model which this is based off of

[whedon]

:wave: @tscheypidi, please update us on how your review is going.

[whedon]

:wave: @marvinjonathcn, please update us on how your review is going.

[tscheypidi]

I am currently waiting for installation instructions (https://github.com/JGCRI/hectorui/issues/19) which are required in order to check installation and functionality of the software.

All other parts have been checked and will get ticked off as soon as the corresponding issues have been resolved (https://github.com/JGCRI/hectorui/issues/20, https://github.com/JGCRI/hectorui/issues/22 and https://github.com/JGCRI/hectorui/issues/23).

https://github.com/JGCRI/hectorui/issues/21 is somehow independent as it is a suggestion but no requirement to complete the review process.

[evanoffPNNL]

@tscheypidi Hey Jan, thanks for your prompt review. I believe we have addressed all of your concerns in the latest release, 1.1.4.

[crvernon]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[crvernon]

@tscheypidi thanks for the thorough review! It has been very helpful.

[tscheypidi]

@crvernon @evanoffPNNL you have developed a nice and useful tool here. Thanks for taking the effort to make your work so accessible to others.

[tscheypidi]

@kthyng I finished my review and recommend the paper to be accepted for publication. All my concerns have been adressed and resolved by the authors.

[kthyng]

@tscheypidi Thanks for your review!