[PRE REVIEW]: AdOpT-NET0: A technology-focused Python package for the optimization of multi-energy systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @JeanWi (Jan F. Wiegner)
Repository: https://github.com/UU-ER/AdOpT-NET0
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-submission
Version: v0.1.2
Editor: @AdamRJensen
Reviewers: @trevorb1, @datejada
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/12578885161d419241e50c5e745b7a11"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/12578885161d419241e50c5e745b7a11/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/12578885161d419241e50c5e745b7a11/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/12578885161d419241e50c5e745b7a11)

Author instructions

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

@JeanWi 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

- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.142 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00681 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.089 is OK
- 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107816 is OK
- 10.46855/energy-proceedings-5280 is OK
- 10.1038/s41597-019-0199-y is OK
- 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2021.10.002 is OK
- 10.1021/ACS.IECR.3C02226 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Energy system integration options for the North Se...

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120738 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.16 s (1320.6 files/s, 192083.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          55           3411           3658          12216
JSON                            90              2              0           4937
SVG                              2             64              0           1642
CSV                             13              0              0           1103
reStructuredText                30            393            310            793
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0            855            245
YAML                             9             38             20            178
Markdown                         2             26              0            139
TeX                              1             10              0            100
TOML                             1              7              0             53
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           208           3963           4851          21441
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   330	6574114
   156	Jean
   141	Tiggeloven
    92	julia1071
    64	Jan Wiegner
    25	Luca
    24	Wiegner
    15	IngeOssentjuk
     7	6145795
     7	lucabert01
     2	Bertoni

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 895

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

RHEIA: Robust design optimization of renewable Hydrogen and dErIved energy cArrier systems
Submitting author: @DCoppitters
Handling editor: @fraukewiese (Active)
Reviewers: @andr1976, @ClaraBuettner
Similarity score: 0.7623

The Spreadsheet Energy System Model Generator (SESMG): A tool for the optimization of urban energy systems
Submitting author: @chrklemm
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Retired)
Reviewers: @nick-gorman, @willu47
Similarity score: 0.7543

autumn: A Python library for dynamic modelling of captured CO_2 cost potential curves
Submitting author: @Eugenio2192
Handling editor: @timtroendle (Retired)
Reviewers: @igarizio, @milicag
Similarity score: 0.7416

GHEtool: An open-source tool for borefield sizing in Python
Submitting author: @wouterpeere
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @jasondegraw, @nmstreethran
Similarity score: 0.7391

Mat-dp: An open-source Python model for analysing material demand projections and their environmental implications, which result from building low-carbon systems.
Submitting author: @kcerva
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @MoLi7, @nick-gorman
Similarity score: 0.7327

⚠️ 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.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @JeanWi, thanks for your submission. Unfortunately, we don't have any editors in this area available to handle this at the moment, so I have to put this on our waitlist. In the meantime, any reviewer recommendations would be welcome (though please don't tag/request them directly).

[JeanWi]

Dear Kyle,
thanks for taking this up! Potentially suitable reviewers would be:

• Marta Victoria (Aarhus University, mvp@mpe.au.dk)
• Francesco Lombardi (Delft University, F.Lombardi@tudelft.nl)
• Stefan Pfenninger-Lee (Delft University, S.Pfenninger@tudelft.nl)
• Clara Büttner (Hochschule Flensburg, clara.buettner@hs-flensburg.de)
  Best,
  Jan

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @AdamRJensen as editor

Hi @AdamRJensen, could you edit this? It looks in your area of expertise. I've checked that it meets the basic requirements for JOSS (at a surface level, at least!).

[editorialbot]

There was a problem inviting the user to edit this submission.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @AdamRJensen as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[AdamRJensen]

@editorialbot assign @AdamRJensen as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @AdamRJensen is now the editor

[AdamRJensen]

Dear Kyle, thanks for taking this up! Potentially suitable reviewers would be:

• Marta Victoria (Aarhus University, mvp@mpe.au.dk)
• Francesco Lombardi (Delft University, F.Lombardi@tudelft.nl)
• Stefan Pfenninger-Lee (Delft University, S.Pfenninger@tudelft.nl)
• Clara Büttner (Hochschule Flensburg, clara.buettner@hs-flensburg.de)

@JeanWi do you have the GitHub usernames for these people? If so, please write them here but leave out the "@" symbol so they don't get tagged just yet.

[JeanWi]

Hi all,
Thanks Adam for editing this!
The GitHub user names are:

• martavp
• FLomb
• sjpfenninger
• ClaraBuettner

[AdamRJensen]

👋 @martavp, @ClaraBuettner, & @sjpfenninger, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[martavp]

Thanks for the invitation @AdamRJensen and I'm sorry I cannot accept it. I don't have the bandwidth to review this during the next couple of months, but I do agree JOSS does a very good job and I'll be happy to support it as a reviewer in the future.

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign @AdamRJensen as editor

(just trying to debug some JOSS dashboard issues Adam)

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @AdamRJensen is now the editor

[AdamRJensen]

👋 @FLomb, @ClaraBuettner, & @sjpfenninger, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[sjpfenninger]

@AdamRJensen, I have no remaining capacity this year, sorry!

[FLomb]

@AdamRJensen I am also unable to help right now; best of luck!

[AdamRJensen]

👋 @trevorb1, @jtock, & @GregorBecker, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

Personally, I volunteer as an editor for JOSS because I think JOSS does a fantastic job at supporting replicable open-source science!

[trevorb1]

Hi @AdamRJensen; thanks so much for the offer to review this submission! I just read the paper and it looks really interesting!

In terms of the timeline, what is your expectation? I have a deliverable due the first week of November, and will be quite busy until then. However, I am available after that and can commit to having the review done by the weekend of Nov 23rd. I may be able to get it done a little earlier than this, but I don't want to over promise.

If this works with your timeline, please add me as a reviewer! Else, if you need the review done earlier, I will not be able to review.

[AdamRJensen]

@editorialbot add @trevorb1 as reviewer

@trevorb1 That is no problem at all, just happy to have you onboard 🥳

[editorialbot]

@trevorb1 added to the reviewers list!

[GregorBecker]

Dear @AdamRJensen, due to an unfinished JOSS review I am involved in, I am unfortunately unable to participate in this review due to time constraints.

[AdamRJensen]

@JeanWi Could you please suggest some additional potential reviewers (comment with their GH usernames but without the @ symbol to avoid tagging them just yet)?

[jtock]

Dear @AdamRJensen, thank you for considering me for the interesting review. Unfortunately, I would not have capacity to start the review before the beginning of December. I suggest you continue looking for another reviewer. If you did not find anyone till then, you can contact me again.
Greetings!

[JeanWi]

@AdamRJensen. We thought about the following additional candidates:

• Elisabeth Zeyen (lisazeyen, TU Berlin)
• Fabian Neumann (fneum, TU Berlin)
• Diego Alejandro Tejada Arango (datejada, TNO Netherlands)

[AdamRJensen]

👋 @lisazeyen& @datejada, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[datejada]

@AdamRJensen Thank you for the invitation to review this submission. I have a tight schedule towards the end of the year, but I will make time to review it. When is the due date?

[AdamRJensen]

@AdamRJensen Thank you for the invitation to review this submission. I have a tight schedule towards the end of the year, but I will make time to review it. When is the due date?

@datejada we usually aim for six weeks but we'd very much appreciate your review even if it slightly exceeds this.

@editorialbot add @datejada as reviewer

[JeanWi]

Thanks everyone! @AdamRJensen: the editorial bot didn't reply, is this a bug or normal behavior?

[lisazeyen]

Dear @AdamRJensen thanks for considering me as a reviewer. Unfortunately, I don't have time to review this time!

[AdamRJensen]

@editorialbot add @datejada as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@datejada added to the reviewers list!

[AdamRJensen]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7402.