[PRE REVIEW]: goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @Qepanna (Karelle Rheault)
Repository: https://github.com/Qepanna/goFlux
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @Schuch666, @shubhamjain15, @hahsan1
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d760de0a609420569b011ed2df3d0b8c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d760de0a609420569b011ed2df3d0b8c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d760de0a609420569b011ed2df3d0b8c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/d760de0a609420569b011ed2df3d0b8c)

Author instructions

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

@Qepanna 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=0.04 s (1009.0 files/s, 279285.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               34            565           3435           3273
JSON                             1              0              0           2597
Markdown                         2            173              0            653
TeX                              1              6              0             70
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            39            745           3439           6611
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 796

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.2136/sssaj1981.03615995004500020017x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01291.x is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0200876 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01751 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

eixport: An R package to export emissions to atmospheric models
Submitting author: @ibarraespinosa
Handling editor: @leeper (Retired)
Reviewers: @jhollist
Similarity score: 0.8281

Flux: Elegant machine learning with Julia
Submitting author: @MikeInnes
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @ysimillides
Similarity score: 0.8180

EmissV: an R package to create vehicular and other emissions for air quality models
Submitting author: @Schuch666
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @nuest, @benmarwick
Similarity score: 0.8147

gdess: A framework for evaluating simulated atmospheric CO₂ in Earth System Models
Submitting author: @dkauf42
Handling editor: @dhhagan (Active)
Reviewers: @slayoo, @simonom
Similarity score: 0.8126

flux-data-qaqc: A Python Package for Energy Balance Closure and Post-Processing of Eddy Flux Data
Submitting author: @JohnVolk
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @dgketchum
Similarity score: 0.8117

⚠️ 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.

[kthyng]

Hi @Qepanna and thanks for your submission. A couple of initial items:

• We require an OSI-approved license to review submissions.
• I don't see any tests directory in your repo but we require some way of testing: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#tests
• I worry about the state of the package given your "beta" comment in the readme and docs. This seems to indicate the package isn't ready for review by JOSS.

[Qepanna]

Hi Kristen, Thank you for considering my software. I have addressed the following: * I added a LICENSE file to the repository * I added the following test files in the .github/workflow directory: * check-standard.yaml * test-coverage.yaml * pkgdown.yaml * pr-commands.yaml * The package is ready and fully functioning, but since it is meant to work with many versions of different instruments, errors that I cannot anticipate may still occur. I have modified the statement from “BETA VERSION” to “FIRST RELEASE”. Best regards, Karelle Rheault Karelle Rheault PhD candidate University of Copenhagen Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management Section of Forest, Nature and Biomass Rolighedsvej 23 Frederiksberg C DIR +45 35 32 43 04 ***@***.******@***.***> [Logo for Københavns Universitet] How we protect personal data<https://informationssikkerhed.ku.dk/english/protection-of-information-privacy/privacy-policy/> LinkedIn Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/karelle-rheault-063842105/?challengeId=AQFSLWms_eH8SgAAAX_gFPGWCFmZ6_X8zLLTJoLuKaedokcA1gR7aPiAHk6XsXDSWeg2UxWeFqKwogNJfkPqmWUQ04uIRcrkrQ&submissionId=047dbc84-f778-e116-d099-3ab935bd880a> From: Kristen Thyng ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 7:42 PM To: openjournals/joss-reviews ***@***.***> Cc: Karelle Rheault ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience (Issue #6177) Hi @Qepanna<https://github.com/Qepanna> and thanks for your submission. A couple of initial items: * We require an OSI-approved license to review submissions. * I don't see any tests directory in your repo but we require some way of testing: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#tests<https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#tests> * I worry about the state of the package given your "beta" comment in the readme and docs. This seems to indicate the package isn't ready for review by JOSS. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#6177 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AP45XA25OSS5GMEKB7DIQILYMRII3AVCNFSM6AAAAABBKMYVXOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZUGQYDKMJYGI>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[kthyng]

@Qepanna Regarding tests, I mean I was looking for a tests directory that runs a variety of tests to make sure that the code is performing correctly and accurately. I see you added some workflows, but are there any tests of this nature in the package? All or at least most functionality of the code base should be checked by tests that can be run by you or a user.

Also I'd recommend you remove or heavily reduce the content in your readme rather than say it is out of date. It's typical to put the basics there (brief description of functionality and installation instructions or similar) then point to the full docs that are up to date. Then you don't have any redundancy or getting out of date between two pages.

[Qepanna]

Hi Kristen, I’m sorry I’m new to GitHub and creating a package. I do not know what you are referring to. One of the workflows performs a “R-CMD-check”, which tests all the examples provided in the functions’ documentations. If this is not what was asked, would you kindly provide me with an example of how to create a test directory and what it should contain. Thank you for your patience. In the meantime, I modified the README file to fit your recommendations. Best regards, Karelle From: Kristen Thyng ***@***.***> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 4:26 PM To: openjournals/joss-reviews ***@***.***> Cc: Karelle Rheault ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [openjournals/joss-reviews] [PRE REVIEW]: goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience (Issue #6177) @Qepanna<https://github.com/Qepanna> Regarding tests, I mean I was looking for a tests directory that runs a variety of tests to make sure that the code is performing correctly and accurately. I see you added some workflows, but are there any tests of this nature in the package? All or at least most functionality of the code base should be checked by tests that can be run by you or a user. Also I'd recommend you remove or heavily reduce the content in your readme rather than say it is out of date. It's typical to put the basics there (brief description of functionality and installation instructions or similar) then point to the full docs that are up to date. Then you don't have any redundancy or getting out of date between two pages. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#6177 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AP45XAZNJCGRARS2XIYNLJDYMV2CLAVCNFSM6AAAAABBKMYVXOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZVGU2DOOJZGQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[kthyng]

@Qepanna Ah! This sounds like a misunderstanding on my part — I am not very familiar with R package structure. My apologies for the confusion.

I'll add this submission to our waitlist now, thank you for your patience.

[kthyng]

Hi @RMeli and welcome to JOSS! Any chance you'd be comfortable enough to edit this submission? I see that it is not immediately in your domain but you are also the only editor with chemistry expertise and this submission has been waiting for awhile. If not, no worries!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @RMeli as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[RMeli]

Hi @kthyng! Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable in this branch of chemistry, nor R. So I don't think I would be suited to edit this submission. But if it's the only way forward, I can have a look and try to find suitable reviewers.

[kthyng]

@RMeli ok thanks, I'll keep trying to find someone.

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

@Qepanna – thanks for your submission to JOSS. Could you take a look a this list of potential reviewers and identify a few people who would be good candidates to review this submission?

[Qepanna]

Hi @arfon, I believe anyone with the area of expertise "Earth Sciences and Ecology" and knows the language R could be a good candidate. Here is my selection of a few candidates who also have some relevant key words in their topic area:
@chenyangkang
@shubhamjain15
@david-yannick
@nmstreethran
@hahsan1

I hope this helps.

[arfon]

@ibarraespinosa @Schuch666 @dkauf42 @hahsan1 👋 would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks
Arfon

[Schuch666]

Hello @arfon ,

Yes it work for me, I'm happy to help with this review.

Let me know the time-line

Thank you,
Daniel

[ibarraespinosa]

hi @arfon , I'm reviewing gcamreport #5975 (comment). Once I have finished I can help with this

[dkauf42]

Hi @arfon, lacking familiarity with R, I don't think I'm up for reviewing this. Please do keep me (or via my other GitHub handle, @danielfromearth) in mind for other reviews though!

[arfon]

Yes it work for me, I'm happy to help with this review.

Thanks @Schuch666 – we ideally would want the reviews to be complete within ~6 weeks which means providing initial feedback in 2-3 weeks. Does that sound OK?

hi @arfon , I'm reviewing gcamreport #5975 (comment). Once I have finished I can help with this

Thanks @ibarraespinosa – I failed to notice you're working on another review for us right now. I'll keep looking for a second reviewer but may come back to you later if I don't identify anyone else. Thanks!

[arfon]

@shubhamjain15 @david-yannick @nmstreethran - 👋 would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is goFlux: A user-friendly way to calculate GHG fluxes yourself, regardless of user experience

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks
Arfon

[nmstreethran]

@arfon I'm currently reviewing another submission. I should be done in a week if you still need someone to help out then.

[shubhamjain15]

@arfon Yes, I would be happy to review this submission.

[hahsan1]

@arfon If you are still in need of reviewers I am available.

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @Schuch666 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Schuch666 added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @shubhamjain15 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@shubhamjain15 added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @hahsan1 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hahsan1 added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@arfon I'm currently reviewing another submission. I should be done in a week if you still need someone to help out then.

Thanks @nmstreethran – it looks like we have plenty of volunteers here to so I'll save you the additional effort at this time, but thank you for being willing to help out!

[arfon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6393.

[arfon]

@Schuch666, @shubhamjain15, @hahsan1, @Qepanna – see you all over in #6393 where the actual review will take place!