[REVIEW]: EcoLogits: Evaluate the Environmental Impacts of Generative AI

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @adrienbanse (Adrien Banse)
Repository: https://github.com/genai-impact/ecologits
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v0.5.0
Editor: @Fei-Tao
Reviewers: @jaywonchung, @vict0rsch
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/30061de5abeaf322be9beaec80f6242d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/30061de5abeaf322be9beaec80f6242d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/30061de5abeaf322be9beaec80f6242d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/30061de5abeaf322be9beaec80f6242d)

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

@jaywonchung & @vict0rsch, 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 @Fei-Tao 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 @jaywonchung

📝 Checklist for @vict0rsch

[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 1.90  T=0.06 s (1973.7 files/s, 202535.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                            43            837             40           3686
Python                          34            593            327           2705
Markdown                        18            682              0           1308
TeX                              1             23              0            323
CSV                              2              0              0            267
TOML                             1             21              1            183
CSS                              1             16             12             67
JavaScript                       2              4              1             29
JSON                             3              0              0             24
make                             1              6              0             22
HTML                             2              0              2              5
SVG                              1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           109           2182            383           8620
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   266	Samuel Rince
   113	Adrien Banse
    30	luc
    10	Samuel Rincé
     5	vinh
     4	Luc BERTON
     2	Clovis Varangot-Reille
     2	Luc
     1	DataForGood (Tech)
     1	Nina P.
     1	Yoann Couble
     1	yco

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1057

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.2211.02001 is OK
- 10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.004 is OK
- 10.1145/3630106.3658542 is OK
- 10.1016/j.suscom.2023.100857 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2104.10350 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1910.09700 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13971 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09288 is OK
- 10.3390/su14095172 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11171501 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02986351 is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-019-01683-x is OK
- 10.1007/s11367-015-0897-4 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02978943 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02978624 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Llama 3 Model Card
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Zeus: Understanding and Optimizing GPU Energy Cons...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LLM-Perf Leaderboard
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Optimum-Benchmark: A framework for benchmarking th...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: BoaviztAPI: a bottom-up model to assess the enviro...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Digital technologies in Europe: an environmental l...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Global E-waste Monitor 2020. Quantities, flows...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Mozilla Public License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[adrienbanse]

cc @samuelrince

[jaywonchung]

Review checklist for @jaywonchung

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/genai-impact/ecologits?
• 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 (@adrienbanse) 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?

[vict0rsch]

Review checklist for @vict0rsch

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/genai-impact/ecologits?
• 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 (@adrienbanse) 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?

[jaywonchung]

genai-impact/ecologits#95