joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[REVIEW]: BifacialSimu: Hollistic Simulation of large-scale Bifacial Photovoltaic Systems
Submitting author: @EwaGomez (Eva-Maria Grommes) Repository: https://github.com/cire-thk/BifacialSimu Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @rkurchin Reviewers: @sidihamady, @kanderso-nrel Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0dc876c447eb1ef878a29faa5c4ebebd"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0dc876c447eb1ef878a29faa5c4ebebd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0dc876c447eb1ef878a29faa5c4ebebd)
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
@sidihamady & @kanderso-nrel, 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 @rkurchin 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 @kanderso-nrel
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.29 s (184.0 files/s, 133726.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 40 7147 10766 18121
JSON 3 41 0 1557
Markdown 2 164 0 367
INI 5 10 0 162
TeX 1 15 0 144
YAML 1 1 4 18
SVG 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 53 7378 10770 20370
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.11578/dc.20180530.16 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113867 is OK
- 10.1016/j.solmat.2014.04.017 is OK
- 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2013.2270351 is OK
- 10.13140/RG.2.2.20990.08008 is OK
- 10.1109/PVSC.2017.8366263 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1109/pvsc.2017.8366704 may be a valid DOI for title: View Factor Model and Validation for Bifacial PV and Diffuse Shade on Single-Axis Trackers
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @sidihamady, I know @kanderso-nrel may not yet have bandwidth to get to this, but you can certainly go ahead and get your review started (see instructions above). Let me know if you have any questions about the process! Also, feel free to open review-related issues in the target repo; please link to this review issue if you do for easy tracking.
Review checklist for @kanderso-nrel
Conflict of interest
- [x] 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
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cire-thk/BifacialSimu?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@EwaGomez) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] 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?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] 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?
Review checklist for @sidihamady
Conflict of interest
- [x] 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
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cire-thk/BifacialSimu?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@EwaGomez) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] 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?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] 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?
Hi @EwaGomez, just checking in if you've had a chance to look over the review-related issues filed by our reviewers!
@rkurchin Thank you for checking in. I already solved one issue and I am working on the others! Am I supposed to solve all of them for the review or can I also explain why I think it's better to solve some later?
The review is meant to be a discussion, with the goal of getting the submission to the point where reviewers agree it merits publication. Feel free to engage in that discussion on those issues!
Hi again, just checking in with author @EwaGomez regarding the issues already filed and reviewers @sidihamady and @kanderso-nrel regarding progress of their reviews!
@rkurchin Thanks for checking in! I already solved 4 issues and the others need a bit more time to implement. I am positive, that I will be able to solve them in the next 2-4 weeks.
Hi @rkurchin, I was already able to close 7 issues and I am working on the last 3. The discussion with both of the reviewers is really helpful and I have never experienced such a good open review process. Thanks a lot!
@EwaGomez, that's wonderful; I'm really glad to hear that as it's exactly what we strive for here at JOSS! 😊
Can you give a ping here when those last issues are resolved?
@rkurchin, One of my co-authors asked to be cut out of the contribution since she does not have time to contribute anything to the changes during the review possible. Am I still able to change the authors?
Hi @rkurchin, I was just able to close the last issue on the program and I am looking forward to the next Review step.
Fantastic! Reviewers (@sidihamady, @kanderso-nrel), please do take another look when you can!
@rkurchin , @EwaGomez my reviewing is complete. As a last step before recommending acceptance of the paper, I would suggest to write a short separate document ("Community guidelines") including a diagram or a description of the software architecture (as I suggested in the prereview stage) and a short guideline on how to contribute to the development.
I did not check the "Automated tests" item since there is no really such a test in this software, but the given step-by-step example is sufficient.
Sorry for the delay; I have been occupied the last few weeks. I plan to take another look here soon. Feel free to ping me again if I have not responded by next week :)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi, just reporting in that I have mostly finished my review but ran into a problem that prevented me from going further (https://github.com/cire-thk/BifacialSimu/issues/21). The other issues I created are not blockers for this review. Thanks!
Thank you for your issues @kanderso-nrel - I am working on them and I am positive, that I will be able to solve them within this week.
Dear @sidihamady, I added another figure with the general architecture and functions in the ReadMe file in the section "Introduction". In the section "Contribution", I already mentioned that people should contact me if they want to further develop BifacialSimu. I added a few ideas on how to contribute and I will improve the guide in the future and convert it to a separate contribution guideline. I have oriented myself to the guidelines of bifacial_radiance, which are very helpful!