joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[PRE REVIEW]: FAME-Core: An open Framework for distributed Agent-based Modelling of Energy systems
Submitting author: @KriNiTi (Kristina Nienhaus) Repository: https://gitlab.com/fame-framework/fame-core Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): 86-publish-paper Version: 1.4.1 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/90d9042b73c4337a71b0831b81b0b94c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/90d9042b73c4337a71b0831b81b0b94c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/90d9042b73c4337a71b0831b81b0b94c)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @KriNiTi. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@KriNiTi if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
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
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.19 s (995.8 files/s, 93712.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java 170 2040 2164 12510
XML 10 0 0 580
Markdown 9 89 0 324
Maven 1 26 1 264
TeX 1 9 0 92
YAML 2 8 12 43
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 193 2172 2177 13813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1155/2017/7494313 is OK
- 10.1155/2017/1967645 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.169 is OK
- 10.3390/en13153920 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.038 is OK
- 10.1007/s10462-009-9105-x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hello @KriNiTi, 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
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
Dear editors, Thank you very much for these helpful processes. We suggest the following reviewers: xtruan mado89 arcuri82 danieledipompeo
@KriNiTi – thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.
For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!
@KriNiTi and @dlr_fn : As this submission seems to be quite closely related to #4795 and #4796 , could you please provide some explanation why you think those three submissions should be handled separately or if it might make sense that e.g. #4794 and #4795 are one submission? Thank you :)
@fraukewiese: Dear Frauke, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to clarify our motivation to submit three separate papers. Our main reasons for doing so, as pointed out in the letter to the editor, are:
All three software packages aim at the same overarching goal, i.e., improving the development of agent-based models in the energy systems analysis community. Each of the three represents a substantial effort and is a complete software on its own. In addition, they are more than the sum of their parts: together, they provide a ready-made basis for scholars to address their respective research questions in this field.
- In detail, FAME-Core is a Java-based framework providing classes and methods to create and run agent-based simulations on single-core and multi-core machines.
- FAME-Io is a Python package enabling scientists to feed input data to their simulations and to extract simulation results in a convenient way.
- AMIRIS is an electricity market model addressing, e.g., business-oriented decisions of actors in the energy system and policy related questions.
We are aware that three simultaneous submissions to one journal are unusual, but, in our opinion, there are good reasons:
- the proposed software packages are the result of more than a decade of development by a research team,
- they are main components of a larger open-source initiative at our Institute of Networked Energy Systems at the German Aerospace Center (DLR),
- being published together, the value for the community increases significantly.
The separate and considerable efforts in all three projects can be seen, e.g., from the commit history:
Commits AMIRIS 112 FAME-Core 292 FAME-Io 309
Contributors AMIRIS 4 FAME-Core 4 FAME-Io 5
Releases AMIRIS 3 FAME-Core 3 FAME-Io 15
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
With kind regards on behalf of the authors,
Kristina
P. S.: We are very happy to have you with your expertise as our handling editor.
@KriNiTi : Thanks for your explanation. So I suggest we move forward with the three submissions and handle them separately. If there are any suggestions by reviewers in one submission that is also relevant for one of the other two submissions, I would like to ask you to also consider and handle it for the respective other submission.
@mado89 , @RafalKucharskiPK , @danieledipompeo – 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 FAME-Core: An open Framework for distributed Agent-based Modelling of Energy systems
Sorry but I don't feel confident reviewing this paper as energy systems are not within my research area
@fraukewiese: Thank you very much. The authors of all three submissions are in close contact with each other. This ensures, that we take your suggestions into consideration where it is also relevant for one or two of the other two submissions.
Dear all,
I am now back from holidays, and, as corresponding author, I will now take my responsibilities and serve as primary point of contact for DLR. Thank you @KriNiTi for your efforts. Kind regards, Christoph Schimeczek
@RafalKucharskiPK , @danieledipompeo – 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 FAME-Core: An open Framework for distributed Agent-based Modelling of Energy systems
@xtruan @RafalKucharskiPK , @danieledipompeo – 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 FAME-Core: An open Framework for distributed Agent-based Modelling of Energy systems
Sounds great. Thanks @xtruan ! I will add you as a reviewer now but won't actually start the review until we have a second reviewer signed up.
@dlr-cjs : I am currently trying to find an additional reviewer by mail. However, if you have any additional ideas who could review, please let me know.
@buddih09 - as announced by mail: would 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 FAME-Core: An open Framework for distributed Agent-based Modelling of Energy systems
@pgranato - as discussed by mail: would 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 FAME-Core: An open Framework for distributed Agent-based Modelling of Energy systems