[REVIEW]: FANGS - Fire Applications with Next-Generation Satellites

[whedon]

Submitting author: @sabrinaszeto ()
Repository: https://gitlab.eumetsat.int/eumetlab/atmosphere/fire-monitoring
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0
Editor: @yabellini
Reviewers: @RomiNahir
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/30a1735810dca44db249d61bbf397dec)

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

@RomiNahir, 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/jose-reviews/invitations

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

Review checklist for @RomiNahir

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 (1.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@sabrinaszeto) 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. @RomiNahir 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]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1161

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41598-017-00116-9 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7463073 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.66 s (45.3 files/s, 86161.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jupyter Notebook                25              0          54330           2258
Markdown                         2             73              0            197
Python                           1             18             49             80
YAML                             1              0              0             48
TeX                              1              3              0             39
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            30             94          54379           2622
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '22eda3c7100ed08b3870db2a' was
gathered on 2023/02/23.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Sabrina Szeto                   24         19681          19392           99.97
jwagemann                        1             9              4            0.03

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Sabrina Szeto               294            1.5          0.0               14.29

[yabellini]

@whedon add @andrewmaclachlan as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @andrewmaclachlan is now a reviewer

[yabellini]

@andrewmaclachlan and @RomiNahir you can start the review on this issue. Here is the Review criteria https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/review_criteria.html and the review checklist https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/review_checklist.html

Please, let me know if you have any questions.

[yabellini]

Hi @andrewmaclachlan and @RomiNahir, checking how everything is going with this review. Is it anything I can o to help?

[whedon]

👋 @RomiNahir, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[RomiNahir]

This article shows a training course of Python-base fire satellite detection. The objectives and instructions are clear as the step by step is easy to reproduce. The content is correct for users who have knowledge in Python and satellite images. It shows an example of success training last year. I will recommend this article because it is a well documented example of satellite training.

[yabellini]

Hi @andrewmaclachlan, since we have not hard from you in several weeks, we are now looking for a new reviewer. Thank you for your original willingness to contribute a review.

[yabellini]

@whedon remove @andrewmaclachlan as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @andrewmaclachlan is no longer a reviewer

[yabellini]

One person I contacted is interested in doing the review but can't do it during the (north) summer. I will be trying to find a second reviewer before. If I fail, I will go back to this person.

[sabrinaszeto]

Thank you for the update, Yanina!

…

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023, 1:07 AM Yanina Bellini Saibene < ***@***.***> wrote: One person I contacted is interested in doing the review but can't do it during the summer. I will be trying to find a second reviewer before. If I fail, I will go back to this person. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#197 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXDJK6S4QSJHCJOZ52YLTXO5ALBANCNFSM6AAAAAAVGIH63I> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sabrinaszeto]

Hi @yabellini, just checking in on the review process. Do let me know if you need anything from me.

[yabellini]

Hi @sabrinaszeto looking for the second review. So sorry is taking so long.

[yabellini]

I have two no answers for potential reviewers. Still looking.