[REVIEW]: CLOVER: A modelling framework for sustainable community-scale energy systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @phil-sandwell (Philip Sandwell)
Repository: https://github.com/CLOVER-energy/CLOVER
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): publish
Version: v5.0.6
Editor: @fraukewiese
Reviewers: @EwaGomez, @fneum
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7575877

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be3c026bd50dd9b53fd3c181cf6e8528"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be3c026bd50dd9b53fd3c181cf6e8528/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be3c026bd50dd9b53fd3c181cf6e8528/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/be3c026bd50dd9b53fd3c181cf6e8528)

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

@EwaGomez & @fneum, 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 @fraukewiese 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 @EwaGomez

📝 Checklist for @fneum

[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=0.50 s (410.9 files/s, 179188.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          80           3920           7577          18171
JavaScript                      17           4510           4494          17123
HTML                            11           1369             33           8098
TeX                             25            885           1158           7321
reStructuredText                11            911           3729           2783
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
YAML                            32             95            845           1151
CSS                              6            294             52           1106
Markdown                         8            199              0            554
Bourne Shell                     5             11             53             60
JSON                             2              0              0             60
make                             2             22             11             50
DOS Batch                        2             17              2             47
INI                              2              0              0              8
TOML                             1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           205          12233          17954          59209
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1344

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.6925534 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.060 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esd.2016.09.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.416 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rset.2021.100003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esd.2021.11.008 is OK
- 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102636 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 may be a valid DOI for title: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[EwaGomez]

Review checklist for @EwaGomez

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/CLOVER-energy/CLOVER?
• 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 (@phil-sandwell) 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?