[REVIEW]: Emiproc: A Python package for emission inventory processing #7509

editorialbot · 2024-11-19T18:23:01Z

Submitting author: @lionel42 (Lionel Constantin)
Repository: https://github.com/C2SM-RCM/emiproc
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v2.3.1
Editor: @mengqi-z
Reviewers: @einaraz, @mikapfl
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14614230

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e069625c156ca1c939cd794e8e396f25"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e069625c156ca1c939cd794e8e396f25/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e069625c156ca1c939cd794e8e396f25/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e069625c156ca1c939cd794e8e396f25)

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

@dostuffthatmatters & @einaraz, 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 @mengqi-z 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 @einaraz

📝 Checklist for @mikapfl

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-11-19T18:23:04Z

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 · 2024-11-19T18:23:21Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5194/gmd-13-2379-2020 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3946761 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.2800/795737 is OK
- 10.35089/WDCC/IconRelease01 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-1885-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-873-2020 is OK
- 10.5194/acp-24-2759-2024 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu24-3375 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu24-7420 is OK
- 10.1029/2006GB002735 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-4043-2018 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric R...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-11-19T18:23:24Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.16 s (1165.8 files/s, 183239.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         103           3303           3407          13090
Jupyter Notebook                13              0           5964           1254
CSV                             27              2              0            502
reStructuredText                21            437            224            483
YAML                            13             13             22            172
TeX                              1              9              0            170
Markdown                         4             56              0            152
TOML                             1              9              0             57
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
JSON                             1              0              0              8
SVG                              1              0              1              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           187           3841           9626          15926
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   446	coli
    81	Ochsner, David
    69	Gerrit Kuhlmann
    50	Haussaire JM
    39	Constantin, Lionel
    32	Michael Jähn
    21	efmkoene
    16	Jean-Matthieu Haussaire
    13	lionel constantin
    12	Lionel C
    11	Dominik Brunner
     4	Haussaire, Jean-Matthieu
     3	David Ochsner
     2	Jaehn, Michael
     2	dao
     2	jmhaussaire
     1	Joel Thanwerdas
     1	Kuhlmann, Gerrit
     1	Michael Steiner
     1	corink21
     1	gredvis

editorialbot · 2024-11-19T18:23:29Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1099

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-11-19T18:23:31Z

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-11-19T18:24:34Z

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

mengqi-z · 2024-11-19T18:29:27Z

👋🏼 @lionel42 @dostuffthatmatters @einaraz - This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7509 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 reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@mengqi-z) if you have any questions/concerns.

einaraz · 2024-11-20T06:39:17Z

Review checklist for @einaraz

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/C2SM-RCM/emiproc?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lionel42) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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?

dostuffthatmatters · 2024-11-20T07:08:33Z

Review checklist for @dostuffthatmatters

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/C2SM-RCM/emiproc?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lionel42) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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?

dostuffthatmatters · 2024-11-20T08:43:28Z

Dear @mengqi-z,

I have noticed that I have a conflict of interest with the second author of the paper (Dominik Brunner). We are both partly funded by the ICOS Cities PAUL, and he is part of the scientific advisory board of ITMS which my lab is partly funded by. Both of these grants fund hundreds of researchers in dozens of institutions, and we are working on separate working package tasks, but we do collaborate in some areas of ICOS Cities PAUL.

I am very sorry for only discovering this now. Before, I had a quick read of the paper and the codebase and a look at the lead author's lab – with which I don't have a single COI. But I overlooked the full author list. I do not have a COI with any other author.

I do think, I can make an impartial judgment on this software and the paper, as I am not working on emission inventories, my lab does not have a competing project, and my involvement with the second author totally disconnected from this effort. But the decision is, of course, up to you.

For full transparency: My lab was asked by Lionel Constantin to contribute to the project in November 2022 via a colleague of mine who is working with emission inventories. But we never contributed anything to the project: we are neither coauthors nor listed in the acknowledgement section, nor is our lab's inventory supported by emiproc. Hence, I don't see this as a COI.

Best regards,
Moritz Makowski

Doctoral Candidate
Environmental Sensing and Modeling (Prof. Jia Chen)
Technical University of Munich

mengqi-z · 2024-11-20T21:36:26Z

Hi @dostuffthatmatters,

Thank you for being transparent about potential conflicts of interest. After careful consideration, we believe there is a conflict of interest, particularly regarding the part "he is part of the scientific advisory board of ITMS which my lab is partly funded by".

Unfortunately, this means you won’t be able to review this paper. But I really appreciate your willingness to contribute. I’m sure there will be other great opportunities for you to review JOSS papers in the future! Thank you again!

mengqi-z · 2024-11-20T21:37:26Z

@editorialbot remove @dostuffthatmatters from reviewers

editorialbot · 2024-11-20T21:37:28Z

@dostuffthatmatters removed from the reviewers list!

mengqi-z · 2024-11-20T21:42:26Z

👋 @mikapfl @varsha2509 - Would any of you be interested in and able to take on this submission for JOSS?

dostuffthatmatters · 2024-11-20T22:09:40Z

Hi @mengqi-z,

Thank you for the swift decision. I totally understand it. Again, sorry for only noticing it after accepting the review.

Best of luck with the review process!

varsha2509 · 2024-11-20T23:13:57Z

Hi @mengqi-z - my schedule is looking a bit tight until beginning of next year so I might have to pass on this review (though the work sounds super interesting!). Good luck with the review process.

mengqi-z · 2024-11-20T23:18:10Z

@dostuffthatmatters - Thank you for your understanding!

mengqi-z · 2024-11-20T23:19:03Z

@varsha2509 - No problem at all. Thanks for getting back to me!

mikapfl · 2024-11-21T10:36:43Z

@mengqi-z I'd be happy to review this submission.

mengqi-z · 2024-11-21T17:11:39Z

@mikapfl - Great, thank you! Just a quick note: this is the REVIEW issue for the paper. Please take a moment to read the instructions above, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

mengqi-z · 2024-11-21T17:12:35Z

@editorialbot add @mikapfl as reviewer

editorialbot · 2024-11-21T17:12:38Z

@mikapfl added to the reviewers list!

mikapfl · 2024-11-22T08:37:45Z

Review checklist for @mikapfl

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/C2SM-RCM/emiproc?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lionel42) 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
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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?

lionel42 · 2025-01-09T07:09:04Z

@mengqi-z

Thanks for finding that out and sorry for the discrepancies.

I have now fixed authors order and version.

mengqi-z · 2025-01-09T17:01:26Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.14614230 as archive

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T17:01:30Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.14614230

mengqi-z · 2025-01-09T17:01:43Z

@editorialbot set v2.3.1 as version

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T17:01:46Z

Done! version is now v2.3.1

mengqi-z · 2025-01-09T17:01:54Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T17:01:58Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T17:02:14Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5194/gmd-13-2379-2020 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3946761 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.2800/795737 is OK
- 10.35089/WDCC/IconRelease01 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-12-1885-2019 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-873-2020 is OK
- 10.5194/acp-24-2759-2024 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu24-3375 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu24-7420 is OK
- 10.1029/2006GB002735 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-4043-2018 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric R...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T17:03:27Z

👋 @openjournals/ese-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#6321, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

mengqi-z · 2025-01-09T17:04:15Z

@lionel42 – I’ve recommended your submission for acceptance. Thanks so much for submitting to JOSS! From here, our Editor-in-Chief will step in to do some final checks before the paper can be officially accepted and published. Congrats and great job!

@einaraz @mikapfl – Huge thanks to all of you for reviewing this paper! It’s been great working with you during this process, and I really appreciate your thoughtful feedback. I look forward to seeing your reviews for JOSS in the future!

lionel42 · 2025-01-09T17:48:07Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T17:48:09Z

I'm sorry @lionel42, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only eics are allowed to do.

kthyng · 2025-01-14T19:23:55Z

Hi! I'll take over now as Track Associate Editor in Chief to do some final submission editing checks. After these checks are complete, I will publish your submission!

Are checklists all checked off?
Check that version was updated and make sure the version from JOSS matches github and Zenodo.
Check that software archive exists, has been input to JOSS, and title and author list match JOSS paper (or purposefully do not).
Check paper.

kthyng · 2025-01-14T19:27:54Z

@editorialbot check repository

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:28:17Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.17 s (1131.1 files/s, 176931.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         103           3303           3407          13090
Jupyter Notebook                13              0           5964           1254
CSV                             27              2              0            502
reStructuredText                21            437            224            483
YAML                            13             13             22            172
TeX                              1              9              0            170
Markdown                         4             56              0            154
TOML                             1              9              0             57
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
JSON                             1              0              0              8
Text                             1              6              0              7
SVG                              1              0              1              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           188           3847           9626          15935
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   451	coli
    81	Ochsner, David
    69	Gerrit Kuhlmann
    50	Haussaire JM
    39	Constantin, Lionel
    32	Michael Jähn
    21	efmkoene
    16	Jean-Matthieu Haussaire
    13	lionel constantin
    12	Lionel C
    11	Dominik Brunner
     4	Haussaire, Jean-Matthieu
     3	David Ochsner
     2	Jaehn, Michael
     2	dao
     2	jmhaussaire
     1	Joel Thanwerdas
     1	Kuhlmann, Gerrit
     1	Michael Steiner
     1	corink21
     1	gredvis

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:28:21Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1101

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:28:23Z

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

kthyng · 2025-01-14T19:32:11Z

Ok everything looks good!

kthyng · 2025-01-14T19:32:16Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:32:19Z

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

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:39:06Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Lionel
  given-names: Constantin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0347-4897"
- family-names: Dominik
  given-names: Brunner
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4007-6902"
- family-names: Joel
  given-names: Thanwerdas
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-831X"
- family-names: Corina
  given-names: Keller
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7128-2584"
- family-names: Michael
  given-names: Steiner
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5425-4570"
- family-names: Erik
  given-names: Koene
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2778-4066"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14614230
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Lionel
    given-names: Constantin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0347-4897"
  - family-names: Dominik
    given-names: Brunner
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4007-6902"
  - family-names: Joel
    given-names: Thanwerdas
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-831X"
  - family-names: Corina
    given-names: Keller
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7128-2584"
  - family-names: Michael
    given-names: Steiner
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5425-4570"
  - family-names: Erik
    given-names: Koene
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2778-4066"
  date-published: 2025-01-14
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07509
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 105
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7509
  title: "Emiproc: A Python package for emission inventory processing"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07509"
  volume: 10
title: "Emiproc: A Python package for emission inventory processing"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:39:10Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:39:11Z

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T19:39:12Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07509 joss-papers#6337
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07509
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng · 2025-01-14T20:29:44Z

Congratulations on your new publication @lionel42! Many thanks to editor @mengqi-z and to reviewers @einaraz and @mikapfl for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

Note we have a new tool for reviewers! You can go to https://joss.theoj.org/papers/reviewed_by/@your-github-username to see the JOSS submissions you have reviewed, and you can also copy a badge there with the number of your JOSS reviews.

editorialbot · 2025-01-14T20:29:46Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.07509/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07509)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07509">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07509/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07509/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07509

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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-open-journals

editorialbot added Python review TeX Track: 6 (ESE) Earth Sciences and Ecology labels Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot assigned mengqi-z Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 19, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Emiproc: A Python package for emission inventory processing #7337

Closed

editorialbot assigned mikapfl Nov 21, 2024

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jan 14, 2025

kthyng closed this as completed Jan 14, 2025

[REVIEW]: Emiproc: A Python package for emission inventory processing #7509

[REVIEW]: Emiproc: A Python package for emission inventory processing #7509

Comments

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 19, 2024

einaraz commented Nov 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @einaraz

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

dostuffthatmatters commented Nov 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @dostuffthatmatters

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

dostuffthatmatters commented Nov 20, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 20, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 20, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 20, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 20, 2024

dostuffthatmatters commented Nov 20, 2024

varsha2509 commented Nov 20, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 20, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 20, 2024

mikapfl commented Nov 21, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 21, 2024

mengqi-z commented Nov 21, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 21, 2024

mikapfl commented Nov 22, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @mikapfl

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

lionel42 commented Jan 9, 2025

mengqi-z commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

mengqi-z commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

mengqi-z commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

mengqi-z commented Jan 9, 2025

lionel42 commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 14, 2025 • edited Loading

kthyng commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 14, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 14, 2025

editorialbot commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

einaraz commented Nov 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dostuffthatmatters commented Nov 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mikapfl commented Nov 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kthyng commented Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading