[REVIEW]: ClimateEstimate.net: A tutorial on climate econometrics

[whedon]

Submitting author: @jrising (James Rising)
Repository: https://github.com/atrisovic/weather-panel.github.io
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @jwagemann, @kls2177
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10833818

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b8083032c189d1d472dc228b55ccd086"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b8083032c189d1d472dc228b55ccd086/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b8083032c189d1d472dc228b55ccd086/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/b8083032c189d1d472dc228b55ccd086)

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

@jwagemann & @kls2177, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @jwagemann

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jrising) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @kls2177

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jrising) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @howardjp, @jwagemann it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/science.aad9837 is OK
- 10.3386/w25189 is OK
- 10.3386/w22181 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ab281e is OK
- 10.1002/wcc.579 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

👋 @jrising @howardjp @jwagemann the actual review for this submission will take place in this issue. Please note the review instructions and checklists at the top of the issue ☝️

[atrisovic]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[atrisovic]

We have a new title 😄

[howardjp]

We have a new title 😄

That's a good title.

[jwagemann]

Hi @kyleniemeyer It seems that I cannot trigger the checklist. Have I accepted the invitation to review? If I follow the link now, I get an error message.

[atrisovic]

Hi @jwagemann, how are you doing? 👋 I had the same problem when I was reviewing another submission, but I somehow solved it by making a change in the URL. I don't exactly remember what I changed 😄 but maybe this thread could help.

[jwagemann]

Hi @atrisovic . As far as I understand it this brings me to the error message. Maybe @kyleniemeyer can re-assign me? Thanks.

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon re-invite @jwagemann as reviewer

[whedon]

The reviewer already has a pending invite.

@jwagemann please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

[kyleniemeyer]

@jwagemann please try that link ☝️

[jwagemann]

@kyleniemeyer - I get 'Sorry, we couldn't find that repository invitation. It is possible that the invitation was revoked or that you are not logged into the invited account.'

Before it was saying that the invite expired.

[atrisovic]

I think for me it worked when I viewed invitations from my profile, ie, something along the lines: https://github.com/<username>/<reponame>/invitations 🤔

[jwagemann]

It would be something like this in my case

https://github.com/jwagemann/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations? This brings me to a 404.

[kyleniemeyer]

@openjournals/dev can you help here? not sure what is going on

[arfon]

@whedon re-invite @jwagemann as reviewer

[whedon]

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

[arfon]

Can you try this URL again please @jwagemann: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

[jwagemann]

Great. Thanks @arfon . It works now.

[jwagemann]

I thank the authors for their time to develop the tutorial ‘ClimateEstimate.net - A tutorial on climate econometrics’ and giving me the opportunity to review it. The tutorial claims to be a ‘step-by-step guidance on carrying out a climatic econometric analysis’. My recommendation is to accept with major revisions for the following reasons:

• at the current state, it fails to meet the aim to be a step-by-step guide on how to carry out climatic econometrics. Sections often seem arbitrary and for a learner or external person it is often hard to understand what the section aims to describe or to do
• Many parts are not easy to follow, as authors try to capture too many aspects. Also many headlines seem a bit out of place, e.g the headline ‘Geographic Information Systems’ is used when the shapefile format is explained
• at the current state, the tutorial cannot be used by anyone other than the authors in order to teach students on the important topic of climatic econometrics
• The smart use of images and explanatory media is missing. The tutorial is heavily based on text and hardly works with additional images that help to understand the complex content
• The general writing needs to be spell-checked and the general tone feels somehow a bit sloppy: e.g. ‘here are some suggestions for dealing with the mess that is political geography’ . I would not use the word ‘mess’ in any type of tutorial.
• The tutorial does not follow a consistent instructional design. Some sections are accompanied with code examples, others explain the content only in a very abstract way.
• Coding examples are either in R or try to show examples in multiple programming languages, which is quite confusing for the learner. I recommend to focus only on one programming language and provide only links to similar packages in other programming languages
• The tutorial misses an accompanying coding script in one of the programming languages. Without a coding script, it is very hard that a learner will be able to implement the content explained

I opened a series of issues with recommendations / comments for each section in the tutorial:

• General comments
• Comments to Introduction section
• Comments to Weather and Climate Data section
• Comments to Developing a reduced-form specification section
• Comments to Weighting Schemes section
• Comments to Geographical Unit Data section
• Comments to Work Organisation section

I am happy to review a new submission.

[atrisovic]

Hi @jwagemann, thank you very much for your time, thorough review, and great comments! We will start working on this right away and follow up once we go through all the comments :)

[labarba]

Hi @jrising 👋 — do let us know how you are getting along with revising your submission!
We are all digging out of the rubble of piled up work, and overall world chaos, so just give as a quick update when you can.

[kyleniemeyer]

@atrisovic yeah, it was the GitHub repo name that looked off. Perhaps that is older? It doesn't matter, just caught my attention.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/science.aad9837 is OK
- 10.3386/w25189 is OK
- 10.3386/w22181 is OK
- 10.1088/1748-9326/ab281e is OK
- 10.1002/wcc.579 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/jose-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/jose-papers#141, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[kyleniemeyer]

@jrising @atrisovic this is now in the hands of @openjournals/jose-eics to do the final checks and then accept. I'm sorry this took so long to complete, but we are at the finish line now!

[jrising]

@kyleniemeyer We're just happy for the positive result! Thank you for helping move this along.

[atrisovic]

Thank you so much @kyleniemeyer 🙏

[atrisovic]

Hi @openjournals/jose-eics, I hope all is well! This is a gentle reminder, we are now in the final stage of the review process.

[labarba]

I see that the version number is v2.0 in the repository, but we see v1.2 at the top of this issue. As I don't see a version command was run here, I will run it now.

[labarba]

@editorialbot set v2.0 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v2.0

[labarba]

I found a broken link to the JupyterBook landing pages, and in fixing it, added a couple of tiny edits.
atrisovic/weather-panel.github.io#93

[labarba]

I notice that the LICENSE on the repository is CC-BY-SA. The footer of the JupyterBook, however, has a copyright symbol and year only. Would you edit the _config.yml to include the license information in the footer?

[labarba]

PR here: atrisovic/weather-panel.github.io#94

[atrisovic]

Both PRs merged! Thank you very much!

[labarba]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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: Rising
  given-names: James A.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8514-4748"
- family-names: Hussain
  given-names: Azhar
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6475-1052"
- family-names: Schwarzwald
  given-names: Kevin
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8309-7124"
- family-names: Trisovic
  given-names: Ana
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1991-0533"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10833818
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Rising
    given-names: James A.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8514-4748"
  - family-names: Hussain
    given-names: Azhar
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6475-1052"
  - family-names: Schwarzwald
    given-names: Kevin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8309-7124"
  - family-names: Trisovic
    given-names: Ana
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1991-0533"
  date-published: 2024-05-23
  doi: 10.21105/jose.00090
  issn: 2577-3569
  issue: 75
  journal: Journal of Open Source Education
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 90
  title: "A practical guide to climate econometrics: Navigating key
    decision points in weather and climate data analysis"
  type: article
  url: "https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00090"
  volume: 7
title: "A practical guide to climate econometrics: Navigating key
  decision points in weather and climate data analysis"

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]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.jose.00090 jose-papers#142
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00090
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[labarba]

Congratulations, @jrising and @atrisovic, your JOSE paper is now published! 🚀
Thank you so much for your patience.

For citations, you may use:

Rising et al., (2024). A practical guide to climate econometrics: Navigating key decision points in weather and climate data analysis. Journal of Open Source Education, 7(75), 90, https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.00090

Note that TheOJ's Crossref deposit is more conducive to collecting citations than a Zenodo (Datacite) DOI, and should be captured by Google Scholar.

Hugely grateful to our Editor: @kyleniemeyer, and Reviewers: @jwagemann, @kls2177 — this adventure in publishing is made possible thanks to your contributions 🙏

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.0090/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.0090)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.0090">
  <img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.0090/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.0090/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jose.0090

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Education 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: http://jose.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-jose

[labarba]

@openjournals/dev Can I request your assistance here? I'm not sure whey the JOSE "published" badge is failing…

[atrisovic]

Thank you very much @labarba and all! The badge looks fine in the repository's readme: https://github.com/atrisovic/weather-panel.github.io :))