[PRE REVIEW]: pathways: life cycle assessment of energy transition scenarios

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @romainsacchi (Romain Sacchi)
Repository: https://github.com/polca/pathways
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.0.1
Editor: @fraukewiese
Reviewers: @kcerva, @marc-vdm
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a454a9fc23453212416645423ab487a8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a454a9fc23453212416645423ab487a8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a454a9fc23453212416645423ab487a8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a454a9fc23453212416645423ab487a8)

Author instructions

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

@romainsacchi 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112311 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00236 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-021-01954-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118614 is OK
- 10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/aa914d is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.5b01558 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.spc.2018.07.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12825 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=2.75 s (22.5 files/s, 78268.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                             2             12              2         130743
YAML                            13             47             29          71057
JSON                             2              0              0           2373
Python                          18            555            627           2131
Jupyter Notebook                 9              0           6375            819
Markdown                         2             99              0            259
TeX                              1             12              0            128
CSV                             14              0              0            114
INI                              1              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            62            725           7033         207628
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   168	romainsacchi
    26	alvarojhahn

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1069

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with affiliations for Alvaro Hahn-Menacho, perhaps the affiliations index need quoting?.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hello @romainsacchi, unfortunately we do not have any editors available to handle your submission right now, so I have to put this on our waitlist until someone frees up.

In the meantime, reviewer recommendations would be welcome (just please don't formally tag anyone with @).

In addition, to fix the paper compilation issue, please put quotations around the affiliation field with multiple numbers: affiliation: "1,2"

[romainsacchi]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[romainsacchi]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @romainsacchi, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[romainsacchi]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=2.39 s (23.0 files/s, 33921.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                            13             47             29          71057
JSON                             2              0              0           2373
Python                          18            555            627           2131
Jupyter Notebook                 4              0           3145            511
Markdown                         2             99              0            259
TeX                              1             12              0            128
CSV                             14              0              0            114
INI                              1              0              0              4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            55            713           3801          76577
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   172	romainsacchi
    26	alvarojhahn

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1069

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[romainsacchi]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112311 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00236 is OK
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-021-01954-6 is OK
- 10.1111/jiec.12825 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118614 is OK
- 10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/aa914d is OK
- 10.1021/acs.est.5b01558 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.spc.2018.07.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[romainsacchi]

Potential reviewers:

1. https://github.com/marc-vdm
2. https://github.com/mkvdhulst
3. https://github.com/CHarpprecht
4. https://github.com/dbantje
5. https://github.com/MaximeAgez
6. https://github.com/mfastudillo

[arfon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

☝ to generate the most similar paper recommendation list which has been broken for some time.

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Brightway: An open source framework for Life Cycle Assessment
Submitting author: @cmutel
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @amoeba
Similarity score: 0.8405

unfold: removing the barriers to sharing and reproducing prospective life-cycle assessment databases
Submitting author: @romainsacchi
Handling editor: @fraukewiese (Active)
Reviewers: @mfastudillo, @MaximeAgez
Similarity score: 0.8303

ELDAM: A Python software for Life Cycle Inventory data management
Submitting author: @GustaveCoste
Handling editor: @sjpfenninger (Retired)
Reviewers: @konstantinstadler, @romainsacchi
Similarity score: 0.8226

Lcopt - An interactive tool for creating fully parameterised Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) foreground models
Submitting author: @pjamesjoyce
Handling editor: @katyhuff (Retired)
Reviewers: @amoeba
Similarity score: 0.8203

Temporalis: an open source software for dynamic LCA
Submitting author: @cardosan
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @pjamesjoyce
Similarity score: 0.8164

⚠️ 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.

[romainsacchi]

Hello @arfon, anything I can do to help moving the process along?

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @fraukewiese as editor

Hello @fraukewiese, could you edit this submission? Thank you!

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[fraukewiese]

Yes, I can edit this submission.

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @fraukewiese is now the editor

[romainsacchi]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Temporalis: an open source software for dynamic LCA
Submitting author: @cardosan
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @pjamesjoyce
Similarity score: 0.7272

WorldDynamics.jl: A Julia Package for Developing and Simulating Integrated Assessment Models
Submitting author: @aurorarossi
Handling editor: @fraukewiese (Active)
Reviewers: @ranocha, @StanczakDominik, @miguelraz
Similarity score: 0.7201

Mat-dp: An open-source Python model for analysing material demand projections and their environmental implications, which result from building low-carbon systems.
Submitting author: @kcerva
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @MoLi7, @nick-gorman
Similarity score: 0.7181

PySD: System Dynamics Modeling in Python
Submitting author: @rogersamso
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @blsqr, @sixpearls
Similarity score: 0.7135

autumn: A Python library for dynamic modelling of captured CO_2 cost potential curves
Submitting author: @Eugenio2192
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Retired)
Reviewers: @igarizio, @milicag
Similarity score: 0.7128

⚠️ 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.

[romainsacchi]

Potential reviewers:

1. https://github.com/marc-vdm
2. https://github.com/mkvdhulst
3. https://github.com/CHarpprecht
4. https://github.com/dbantje
5. https://github.com/MaximeAgez
6. https://github.com/mfastudillo
7. https://github.com/cmutel

[fraukewiese]

@ClaraBuettner, @@kcerva, @mkvdhulst
– would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

The submission under review here is pathways: life cycle assessment of energy transition

[kcerva]

@fraukewiese The topic seems relevant to me, however could you please advise on expectations regarding review deadline? So I decide based on my workload.

[fraukewiese]

@kcerva : Thanks a lot for your answer. Usually, the review process is expected to take around 6 weeks. However, since we still need to find a second reviewer, it might also take longer. When do you think you would be able to work on the review?

[fraukewiese]

fyi: I am out of office now for 3 weeks and will be back beginning of September

[fraukewiese]

@kcerva : Do you think you would be available for the review during the next 2-3 months?

[fraukewiese]

@marc-vdm @aurorarossi
– would one of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

The submission under review here is pathways: life cycle assessment of energy transition

[marc-vdm]

@kcerva : Do you think you would be available for the review during the next 2-3 months?

@fraukewiese Would this be timeline for me as well? In that case, I'd be happy to accept.

edit: 6 weeks mentioned above is also fine, it's just last time I was asked for review -for another Journal- they wanted a much shorter timeline.

[aurorarossi]

Hello @fraukewiese unfortunately, at the moment I do not have time to review this work. Thank you!

[fraukewiese]

@kcerva : Thank you very much! The goal is to finish a review within 6 weeks, including the iteration steps of the reviewers making improvement suggestions and the authors reacting to those and adapting code and paper. This can also already start step-by-step during the process of reviewing. So your review does not have to be finished before already suggestion points for improvement to the authors or questions you might have in the review threat. However, this might take longer that the 6 weeks, so probably 2-3 months is more realistic, also because we still need to find a second reviewer. Thus, I will make you reviewer now but the actual review will start as soon as we have found a second reviewer and I will notify you here in this thread.

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot add @kcerva as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@kcerva added to the reviewers list!

[fraukewiese]

@rogersamso , @mfastudillo
– would one of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

The submission under review here is pathways: life cycle assessment of energy transition

[marc-vdm]

@fraukewiese I'm seeing these comments and I wonder if you accidentally meant me but mixed the names up?

[fraukewiese]

@marc-vdm : Thanks, yes I think you are right. Sorry for mixing it up! I will make you a reviewer then :)

@fraukewiese I'm seeing these comments and I wonder if you accidentally meant me but mixed the names up?

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot add @marc-vdm as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@marc-vdm added to the reviewers list!

[fraukewiese]

@kcerva : Thank you very much! The goal is to finish a review within 6 weeks, including the iteration steps of the reviewers making improvement suggestions and the authors reacting to those and adapting code and paper. This can also already start step-by-step during the process of reviewing. So your review does not have to be finished before already suggestion points for improvement to the authors or questions you might have in the review threat. However, this might take longer that the 6 weeks, so probably 2-3 months is more realistic, also because we still need to find a second reviewer. Thus, I will make you reviewer now but the actual review will start as soon as we have found a second reviewer and I will notify you here in this thread.

@kcerva : I have mixed the the answer from @marc-vdm up with you, that's why I made you a reviewer already. Sorry for that! However, would you still be willing to review this submission taking into consideration my answer about the deadlines? :)

[kcerva]

@fraukewiese sorry, I missed the last few messages due to an intense workload. I can do the review, yes. Thanks.

[fraukewiese]

@kcerva : Great, thanks for agreeing to review!

[fraukewiese]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7309.

[fraukewiese]

@kcerva @marc-vdm – many thanks for agreeing to review here! See you over in #7309 where the actual review will take place.