[REVIEW]: GHEtool: An open-source tool for borefield sizing in Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @wouterpeere (Wouter Peere)
Repository: https://github.com/wouterpeere/GHEtool
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: v2.0.4
Editor: @crvernon
Reviewers: @jasondegraw, @nmstreethran
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7004037

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ae2224874ee0139d6f28baa48fe9127"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ae2224874ee0139d6f28baa48fe9127/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ae2224874ee0139d6f28baa48fe9127/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ae2224874ee0139d6f28baa48fe9127)

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

@jasondegraw & @nmstreethran, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @nmstreethran

📝 Checklist for @jasondegraw

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, 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=0.34 s (73.7 files/s, 70343.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          18            517           1552          21478
Markdown                         4             63              0            162
TeX                              1              8              0             57
YAML                             1              1              4             18
TOML                             1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            25            589           1556          21721
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1101

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.045 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[crvernon]

👋 @wouterpeere , @jasondegraw , and @nmstreethran This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #4406 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

[wouterpeere]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[wouterpeere]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @wouterpeere, 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

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

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

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

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

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

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

[nmstreethran]

Review checklist for @nmstreethran

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 https://github.com/wouterpeere/GHEtool?
• 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 (@wouterpeere) 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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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?

[wouterpeere]

@jasondegraw, did you have some time already to take a look at the repository? I'm looking forward to your comments.

[wouterpeere]

From the 8th of July, I will be on holiday. @jasondegraw, do you think it would be possible to review GHEtool before the 7th of July? It would be nice if I could finish this review process before going on holiday ..

[wouterpeere]

@crvernon There doesn't seem to be much reaction from @jasondegraw ... How do we proceed?

[jasondegraw]

@wouterpeere I'm aiming to get this done within the 4-6 weeks timeframe, so I'd ask you to be patient.

[wouterpeere]

@jasondegraw Thanks for coming back to this. I just thought that, for some reason or another, we weren't able to reach you. Sorry for the impatience, I'm looking forward to your comments!

[wouterpeere]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[jasondegraw]

Review checklist for @jasondegraw

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 https://github.com/wouterpeere/GHEtool?
• 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 (@wouterpeere) 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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• 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?

[crvernon]

📣 Rally time!

👋 @nmstreethran - It looks like you are making good progress on your review but I do see a few boxes left unchecked. Could you update me here to anything that is remaining from your perspective?

👋 @jasondegraw - I see you have gotten started. Could you update me here to your progress? Thanks!

Keep up the good work!

[jasondegraw]

@crvernon Hmmm, something is wrong, I had a comment that I was sure I posted here. Maybe I didn't click "Comment" or something? I'll have to reconstitute it from my notes, I guess, because I'm not finding any old browser tabs with unsubmitted comments. Apologies for the delay.

[wouterpeere]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[nmstreethran]

@crvernon Sorry for the delay. I need to finish going through the paper and some of the examples. I'll complete my review by the end of the week. Thanks!

[wouterpeere]

@crvernon the DOI of Zenodo is: 10.5281/zenodo.7004017

[wouterpeere]

The version of GHEtool is v2.0.3 and not anymore the v2.0.0 listed in this thread ...

[crvernon]

@wouterpeere does this correspond to a new release that contains your updated paper revisions from today? It looks like your latest version was v2.0.3 from 5 days ago.

[wouterpeere]

@crvernon Right, I forgot about the paper changes.
The version is now v2.0.4, the DOI is also updated to this new version: 10.5281/zenodo.7004037

[crvernon]

@editorialbot set v2.0.4 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v2.0.4

[crvernon]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7004037 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7004037

[crvernon]

@wouterpeere - thanks for putting together a really nice software product! Thanks to @nmstreethran and @jasondegraw for a constructive and timely review!

I am recommending that your submission be accepted. An EIC will review this shortly and confirm final publication if all goes well.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.045 is OK
- 10.26868/25222708.2021.30180 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.11.009 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.097 is OK
- 10.3390/en13236203 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3439, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[wouterpeere]

@crvernon Thank you for your guidance through this review process!!

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @wouterpeere, I made a few minor edits to the paper: wouterpeere/GHEtool#16

Can you merge these? I will then accept your submission.

[wouterpeere]

Hi @wouterpeere, I made a few minor edits to the paper: wouterpeere/GHEtool#16

Can you merge these? I will then accept your submission.

Hi @kyleniemeyer , I merged you're changes. Do I need to update the archive and version also?

[kyleniemeyer]

@wouterpeere thanks, and no, that's not necessary since the software did not change. I'll move forward with accepting now

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04406 joss-papers#3441
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04406
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kyleniemeyer]

Congratulations @wouterpeere on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @jasondegraw and @nmstreethran for reviewing this, and @crvernon for editing.

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04406/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04406)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04406">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04406/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04406/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04406

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss