Scientific reviewers for pull requests

[axel-lauer]

Dear ESMValTool developers,

Some pull requests are open for a long time because it is often hard to find developers that could do the scientific review of a new recipe. Here, I would like to compile a list of potential developers that could be asked to do such a review as discussed at the last monthly ESMValTool meeting (#1801). I tried to sort the proposed potential reviewers by scientific theme. This list is a first attempt and is not meant to be complete or comprehensive. Please add / correct / remove items from this list as you think. Any help is appreciated.

Atmosphere - aerosols
@mattiarighi
@MichaelSchulzMETNO
@jgriesfeller

Atmosphere - chemistry
@irenecionni

Atmosphere - clouds
@axel-lauer
@LanderVT

Atmosphere - emergent and observational constraints
@bettina-gier
@schlunma
@lukasbrunner

Atmosphere - greenhouse gases
@bettina-gier
@hb326
@zechlau

Atmosphere/Ocean - modes of variability
@yukosaka
@makelaj

Extreme events
@IreMav
@cwmohr
@maritsandstad
@jhardenberg
@chunxueyang

Hydrology, water cycle
@jeromaerts
@katjaweigel

Land surface
@edavin
@StefanHagemann
@BenMGeo
@tobstac

Ocean - biogeochemistry/-physics
@tillku
@ytakano3
@LesterMK
@qlejeune

Ocean - general
@tomaslovato
@zklaus

Sea ice
@fmassonn

[jgriesfeller]

Raising my hand for Atmosphere - aerosols.
I am working for @MichaelSchulzMETNO.

[axel-lauer]

@jgriesfeller : Thanks! That's great! I added you to the list.

[ruthlorenz]

is there information on what is expected from a scientific review? or a "how to guide" with best practices? might be helpful for people who have never done it before

[zechlau]

I am fine reviewing a GHG pull request. Could someone point me to these? Could nod find any label adressing it....

[bouweandela]

is there information on what is expected from a scientific review? or a "how to guide" with best practices? might be helpful for people who have never done it before

@ruthlorenz Very good suggestion, we'll need to write one!

I am fine reviewing a GHG pull request. Could someone point me to these? Could nod find any label adressing it....

@zechlau Great! The list is intended as a reference of who to ask when a pull request comes in. What does GHG stand for? Then we can add you as a specialist for this topic.

[Peter9192]

What does GHG stand for

greenhouse gases, already enlisted ;-)

Perhaps we could indeed add labels for the topics that Axel used above? I'm not sure if that list is exhaustive though. What to do with PRs that don't fit in these categories?

[axel-lauer]

The labels are a good idea. Any ideas/wishes how these should look like? Also, please feel free to add to our list, this was meant as a starting point only. Any input is welcome!

[bouweandela]

Labels are nice for categorizing, but we would also need some way to attract the attention of relevant reviewers to a pull request. Maybe we could publish the list above in a new Review chapter in https://docs.esmvaltool.org/en/latest/community/, along with some instructions on how to request a review and how to contribute a review/what to look out for when doing a review?

[bouweandela]

A pull request with guidelines for doing reviews is now available in #1872 and I created the @ESMValGroup/science-reviewers team. @axel-lauer Would you have time to add the people who signed up to be scientific reviewers to that team so they can be tagged as a group when someone needs a scientific review? It would also be great if you could remove me from the team and pick some other maintainers, because I'm not a scientific reviewer.

[axel-lauer]

@bouweandela I removed you from the team @ESMValGroup/science-reviewers. So far, no one has signed up to be a (science) reviewer, people listed above are taken from the list of all ESMValTool developers who indicated interest in a specific field. I guess we need to contact people and ask.

[nielsdrost]

Hi all, thanks so much for signing up for these teams! I noticed that the GitHub review teams are not completely in sync with the list of user names in this issue.

If no one objects I'll update the GitHub teams with the names from this issue and close the issue.

[axel-lauer]

I haven't added the names listed here to our new reviewer teams because I thought it might be good to add only people to the teams that have explicitely agreed to become a member. The list of potential reviewers in this issue was just a wild first guess from my side. People listed here did not object but that typically simply meant no feedback. Technically, it would be good to have more members in the reviewer teams but I guess it would be good to continue asking people first. What do you think?

[nielsdrost]

Thanks @axel-lauer, good to know! Should we then at least add the people that confirmed in this issue they are willing to do reviews?

[axel-lauer]

@nielsdrost Yes, I think that would be a good idea and I just added @zechlau to the "atmosphere" reviewer team. @jgriesfeller is not a member of the ESMValTool development team yet. @jgriesfeller would you like to join?
Did I miss anyone else?

[nielsdrost]

Thanks @axel-lauer! @lukasbrunner added himself to the "Atmosphere - emergent and observational constraints" category, so I assume he is ok with being on the reviewers team :-)

And perhaps we should start actively approaching people (via email?) for the science reviewer team(s)?

[jgriesfeller]

@axel-lauer I am happy to join the ESMValTool development team.