[PRE REVIEW]: BoARIO: A Python package implementing the ARIO indirect economic cost model

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @spjuhel (Samuel Juhel)
Repository: https://github.com/spjuhel/BoARIO
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.5.3
Editor: @crvernon
Reviewers: @mwt, @potterzot
Managing EiC: Olivia Guest

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71386aa01a292ecff8bafe273b077701"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71386aa01a292ecff8bafe273b077701/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71386aa01a292ecff8bafe273b077701/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71386aa01a292ecff8bafe273b077701)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @spjuhel. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@spjuhel if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.20 s (585.9 files/s, 225516.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            30           6466            119          23856
Python                          20            910           1298           5013
SVG                              7              0              0           1718
CSS                             11            232             86           1166
JavaScript                      12            161            238           1017
TeX                              4             50              4            673
reStructuredText                21            601            625            657
Markdown                         5             48              0            196
TOML                             1              9              0             79
YAML                             4             11             14             76
JSON                             1              0              0             36
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              5              7             16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           118           8501           2392          34529
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1109

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/jiec.12715 is OK
- 10.1021/es300171x is OK
- 10.2139/ssrn.4101276 is OK
- 10.1093/reep/rez004 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.251 is OK
- 10.1029/2020ef001616 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.8383171 is OK
- 10.1038/s41562-020-0896-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-010-9979-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jedc.2011.10.001 is OK
- 10.1007/s10584-010-9978-3 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046.x is OK
- 10.1111/risa.12090 is OK
- 10.1007/s12665-011-1078-9 is OK
- 10.1007/s11069-013-0788-6 is OK
- 10.1111/risa.12300 is OK
- 10.1029/2018ef000839 is OK
- 10.1038/s41893-020-00646-7 is OK
- 10.1080/19475705.2018.1489312 is OK
- 10.31223/x5qd6b is OK
- 10.1038/s41558-018-0173-2 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ab3306 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts480 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2139/ssrn.3285818 may be a valid DOI for title: EUREGIO: The construction of a global IO DATABASE with regional detail for Europe for 2000-2010

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

AgentPy: A package for agent-based modeling in Python
Submitting author: @JoelForamitti
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @jamesdamillington, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.8122

CoPro: a data-driven modelling framework for conflict risk projections
Submitting author: @JannisHoch
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @soodoku, @sbenthall
Similarity score: 0.8041

GeoBO: Python package for Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimisation and Joint Inversion in Geosciences
Submitting author: @sebhaan
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @npetra, @sgkang
Similarity score: 0.8017

IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking
Submitting author: @Xunius
Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired)
Reviewers: @sadielbartholomew, @rabernat
Similarity score: 0.7995

AMIRIS: Agent-based Market model for the Investigation of Renewable and Integrated energy Systems
Submitting author: @KriNiTi
Handling editor: @fraukewiese (Active)
Reviewers: @sebastianboblest, @imcatta
Similarity score: 0.7965

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[oliviaguest]

👋 @spjuhel thank you for choosing JOSS! I need to find you an editor (who will then find you reviewers). In the meantime, can you check the missing DOI above and change 2-3 citations I noticed to avoid double brackets, please? 😊

[spjuhel]

👋 @oliviaguest, and thank you for your time, I'm excited to submit to JOSS !

I made the modifications. Please tell me if you require anything else !

[spjuhel]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

AgentPy: A package for agent-based modeling in Python
Submitting author: @JoelForamitti
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @jamesdamillington, @martibosch
Similarity score: 0.8126

IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking
Submitting author: @Xunius
Handling editor: @kbarnhart (Retired)
Reviewers: @sadielbartholomew, @rabernat
Similarity score: 0.8023

GeoBO: Python package for Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimisation and Joint Inversion in Geosciences
Submitting author: @sebhaan
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @npetra, @sgkang
Similarity score: 0.8022

CoPro: a data-driven modelling framework for conflict risk projections
Submitting author: @JannisHoch
Handling editor: @sbenthall (Active)
Reviewers: @soodoku, @sbenthall
Similarity score: 0.8016

Riroriro: Simulating gravitational waves and evaluating their detectability in Python
Submitting author: @wvanzeist
Handling editor: @dfm (Active)
Reviewers: @GregoryAshton, @katiebreivik
Similarity score: 0.7956

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[oliviaguest]

@dfm @hugoledoux @sbenthall do you have capacity coming up? ☺️

[dfm]

@oliviaguest — I'm catching up on the AASS track backlog, so I can't help with this one!

[hugoledoux]

sorry not really, I am already behind with other submissions (and I feel bad about it...)

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @crvernon is now the editor

[crvernon]

👋 @mwt - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[crvernon]

👋 @rickecon - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @mwt as reviewer

Thanks @mwt , sorry I missed your thumbs-up on this!

[editorialbot]

@mwt added to the reviewers list!

[crvernon]

👋 @yasinkutuk - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[crvernon]

👋 @bbortey9 - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[spjuhel]

👋 Everyone, @crvernon,

I have made some changes to the package since my initial submission, notably in order to publish it on conda-forge, improve the CI/CD pipeline. The latest version is now 0.5.7, should I update the submission?

[crvernon]

@spjuhel sure, you can update the code/paper at this point. Our goal is to help make your software, and how you communicate it to a general audience, better throughout the course of this review. So once we hit full review (when I can confirm one more reviewer), you will get feedback from them throughout the process as well. Thanks!

[crvernon]

👋 @potterzot - Would you be willing to review this submission to JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[potterzot]

Hi @crvernon I'd be happy to review this.

[crvernon]

Great, thanks @potterzot !

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @potterzot as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@potterzot added to the reviewers list!

[crvernon]

👋 - Alright @spjuhel, @mwt, @potterzot - I am going to close this Pre-Review and kick off the full review which you should receive a notification for. Thanks!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6547.