[PRE REVIEW]: auto-icon: seamless management of ICON model runs with Autosubmit

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @abaer-kit (Andreas Baer)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/auto-icon/auto-icon
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v1.2
Editor: @jedbrown
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/03249d4d9c3a812767e73f47beb3c8ff"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/03249d4d9c3a812767e73f47beb3c8ff/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/03249d4d9c3a812767e73f47beb3c8ff/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/03249d4d9c3a812767e73f47beb3c8ff)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @abaer-kit. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@abaer-kit if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/HPCSim.2016.7568429 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.2378 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.5910888 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.3737927 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03049 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2312.07852 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: FAIR Principles

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.08 s (1880.9 files/s, 181076.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                            70            629            959           3767
Python                          31            689           1214           3645
Bourne Shell                    37            414            650           1407
Markdown                         2             47              0            188
diff                             4             29            131            115
TeX                              1              7              0             68
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           145           1815           2954           9190
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   262	Oriol Tintó
   234	Andreas Baer
    73	Oriol Tintó Prims
    66	Fabian.Jakub
     4	Oriol.Tinto
     1	Michael Krayer
     1	Takumi.Matsunobu

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1143

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

PyExperimenter: Easily distribute experiments and track results
Submitting author: @tornede
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Retired)
Reviewers: @ArsamAryandoust, @schnorr
Similarity score: 0.6816

MetObs - a Python toolkit for using non-traditional meteorological observations
Submitting author: @vergauwenthomas
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @ashwinvis, @Zeitsperre
Similarity score: 0.6787

Mantik: A Workflow Platform for the Development of Artificial Intelligence on High-Performance Computing Infrastructures
Submitting author: @rico-berner
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @zhaozhang, @gflofst
Similarity score: 0.6761

omni-fig: Unleashing Project Configuration and Organization in Python
Submitting author: @felixludos
Handling editor: @gkthiruvathukal (Active)
Reviewers: @julianpistorius, @jarrah42
Similarity score: 0.6735

Autosubmit GUI: A Javascript-based Graphical User Interface to Monitor Experiments Workflow Execution
Submitting author: @wuruchi
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @djmitche, @ikayz
Similarity score: 0.6729

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[abaer-kit]

Reviewer suggestions:

• Haipeng "Jimmie" Lin (jimmielin)
• Irene Garousi-Nejad (igarousi)
• Lukas Riedel (peanutfun)
• Moritz Makowski (dostuffthatmatters)
• Sergey Yakubov (SergeyYakubov)

[kthyng]

Hi @abaer-kit and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:

• OSI-approved license
• Installation instructions
• Documentation exists at all
• Tests of some sort
• Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
• Substantial scholarly effort
• Clear research application

In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.

[kthyng]

@jedbrown Can you edit this submission?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @jedbrown as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[kthyng]

@jedbrown Could you take this submission on?

[kthyng]

@diehlpk Would this fit in your area of expertise?

[kthyng]

@editorialbot invite @diehlpk as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[diehlpk]

@kthyng that is too far away from my research. I could take it if we do not find anyone. However, I could judge the code quality only.

[kthyng]

ok thanks @diehlpk. Sounds like @jedbrown can do it after all!

[kthyng]

@editorialbot assign @jedbrown as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jedbrown is now the editor

[abaer-kit]

Dear @jedbrown @kthyng ,
as there were no further comments for some time, I kindly wanted ask whether there is any news on this issue?

[jedbrown]

@abaer-kit I'm sorry about my delay here. I've done my pre-review and will proceed with inviting reviewers.

[jedbrown]

@daniloceano @igarousi @jimmielin @peanutfun 👋 Would you be available to review this submission for JOSS?

[jedbrown]

@abaer-kit I've been having some trouble finding reviewers for this. Installing ICON is a big lift for someone who doesn't use it and my network is more familiar with model development and dycore aspects. Could you suggest potential reviewers from your broader network (not just the JOSS reviewer database) that are not conflicted with you and use ICON or conduct similar ensemble studies?

[jedbrown]

@igarousi @dostuffthatmatters @SergeyYakubov 👋 Would you be available to review this submission for JOSS?

[dostuffthatmatters]

Hi @jedbrown,

I am happy to review this paper. I am actively using ICON-ART outputs, but never ran the model myself – but I am up to read into it.

[abaer-kit]

@abaer-kit I've been having some trouble finding reviewers for this. Installing ICON is a big lift for someone who doesn't use it and my network is more familiar with model development and dycore aspects. Could you suggest potential reviewers from your broader network (not just the JOSS reviewer database) that are not conflicted with you and use ICON or conduct similar ensemble studies?

Sorry for the late reply. For sure, we can also provide suggestions from the community. If you need any further info or further suggestions, please let me know.
Karten Peters-von Gehlen (DKRZ)
[email protected]

René Redler (MPIM)
[email protected]

Karl-Hermann Wieners (MPIM)
[email protected]

Fabian Senf (TROPOS)
[email protected]
Github: fsenf