[REVIEW]: The University of Toronto Climate Downscaling Workflow: Tools and Resources for Climate Change Impact Analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @mikemorris12 (Michael Morris)
Repository: https://github.com/mikemorris12/UTCDW_Guidebook/
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSE-submission
Version: v1.0
Editor: @acocac
Reviewers: @aulemahal, @brian-rose
Archive: Pending
Paper kind: learning module

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/2c5db4cc1b1668693b3aabb62501fe58)

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

@aulemahal & @brian-rose, 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://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @acocac 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 @aulemahal

[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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/9781108601269 is OK
- 10.21105/jose.00100 is OK
- 10.1017/9781107588783 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: XClim Official Documentation

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.42 s (576.3 files/s, 421510.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                            41           6668            288          27461
Jupyter Notebook                83              0          88840          17821
JavaScript                      21           4573           4489          16561
CSS                             12            811            115           2904
PO File                         45           1007              0           2284
YAML                             6              8              6           1203
TeX                              2             32              0            494
Markdown                        25            316              0            447
Python                           2            119            281            250
SVG                              5              0              1             29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           242          13534          94020          69454
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   156	mike-morris-codes
    15	Michale Morris

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1069

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🔴 License found: Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International (Not OSI approved)

[editorialbot]

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

[acocac]

👋 @aulemahal @brian-rose we will conduct the review in this issue.

Please read through the above information and let me know if you have any questions about the review process.

Thank you 🙏

[aulemahal]

Review checklist for @aulemahal

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 https://github.com/mikemorris12/UTCDW_Guidebook/?
• 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?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mikemorris12) 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)?