[REVIEW]: Nempy: A Python package for modelling the Australian National Electricity Market dispatch procedure

[whedon]

Submitting author: @nick-gorman (Nicholas Gorman)
Repository: https://github.com/UNSW-CEEM/nempy
Version: v1.1.2
Editor: @timtroendle
Reviewer: @noah80, @robinroche
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5989170

⚠️ 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.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70ac80e2603b4eef6157d9d783ac0f8e"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70ac80e2603b4eef6157d9d783ac0f8e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70ac80e2603b4eef6157d9d783ac0f8e/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70ac80e2603b4eef6157d9d783ac0f8e)

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

@noah80 & @robinroche, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @timtroendle 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 @noah80

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@nick-gorman) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
• 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?

Review checklist for @robinroche

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@nick-gorman) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
• 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?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @noah80, @robinroche 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/joss-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/joss-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]

PDF failed to compile for issue #3596 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.65 s (98.5 files/s, 179070.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                              2              4              0          93528
Python                          46           3347           7224           5812
SVG                              2              0              0           5223
HTML                             1             91              0            365
Markdown                         1             47              0            264
reStructuredText                 8             98             92            201
YAML                             1              0              2             51
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
INI                              1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            64           3599           7326         105482
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '6a58250476f57617e864f97d' was
gathered on 2021/08/10.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Ben Elliston                     1            10             39            0.10
Nicholas Gorman                  2           459            150            1.23
Nick                            26          8124           6965           30.38
Nick Gorman                      2           356            505            1.73
nick-gorman                    111         24034           9032           66.57

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
Ben Elliston                  3           30.0          1.2                0.00
nick-gorman               16380           68.2          3.1                6.53

[timtroendle]

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[timtroendle]

@noah80, @robinroche, I'll add a reminder for both of you to notify you when half of the six weeks has elapsed.

[timtroendle]

@whedon remind @noah80 in three weeks

[whedon]

Reminder set for @noah80 in three weeks

[timtroendle]

@whedon remind @robinroche in three weeks

[whedon]

Reminder set for @robinroche in three weeks

[timtroendle]

/ooo September 4 until September 26

[timtroendle]

@robinroche, @noah80, I will be out of office for the duration mentioned above. If there are any questions from your side about this review, it would be great if you could ask them before I leave.

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

👋 @noah80, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[robinroche]

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

I have started the review, and will complete it in the coming weeks.

[timtroendle]

@noah80, can you please let us know how your review is going?

[whedon]

👋 @noah80, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[whedon]

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

[robinroche]

@timtroendle
@nick-gorman

Thanks for this interesting submission. I installed the package and ran the examples without trouble.

After reviewing the submission, here are some suggestions for improvement:

1. While I understand the general purpose of the code, additional information on how it could be used could be useful. For example: provide use cases, questions it could help answer, etc.
2. Briefly introduce the basics of electricity markets, e.g., a very simplified version of a market clearing problem, its objectives and constraints. Similarly, introduce acronyms such as FCAS.
3. Explain how to interpret example results. What should be expected and how to know it worked? Could graphs be added to have a more visual result?
4. Specify the size of the data to download in the description of example 2 (this is only given in the comments). As this is really a lot of data, could it be possible to design another example with less data requirements?
5. Briefly explain the main steps of the dispatch procedure.
6. Be more specific when you mention: "Significant changes to the dispatch process are also likely to occur soon"
7. The text mentions "Version 1 will be a stable release and ongoing minor updates or patches will remain backwards compatible." The current version is 1.0.1
8. Link to a document explaining how the actual NEM works.
9. Explain how to use solvers and what criteria they should meet.
10. List "todos" you intend to implement in the future, possibly with priorities.
11. Move the long list of examples closer to where they would make sense, add more details in the description
12. Explain how to check the computation time.
13. Explain how to report an issue or get support.
14. List the dependencies.
15. Regarding the paper abstract, make it simpler for a wider audience and clarify the problems it can help solve and/or the questions it can help answer. Who is the target audience?

[timtroendle]

@noah80, can you please give us an indication about the progress of your review?

[noah80]

@timtroendle
@nick-gorman

Sorry for the delay. After reviewing the software too, I reached similar conclusions to Robin.

1. The code is well-documented and readable.
2. Even after reading the documentation and the paper I still don't know what the software could be used for. Why would anyone want to model the dispatch?
3. The predefined examples show how to use the software, but don't explain the results. No graphs are generated. Could those be added to help the users better understand the results?
4. The research question for the software is not explained. Maybe add some other sources that explain why this software is used and what results can be generated with the software?

Right now with the given software it is rather difficult to judge if the software delivers the promised functionality and who could use the software for what purpose.

[timtroendle]

@whedon set v1.1.2 as version

[whedon]

OK. v1.1.2 is the version.

[timtroendle]

Thanks @nick-gorman. It all looks good and I will now recommend your submission for acceptance.

[timtroendle]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2932

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2932, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 is OK
-  10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a  is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.002 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116731 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110195 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2018.203 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.052 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kthyng]

Hi @nick-gorman! Items for wrapping up:

1. I see your Zenodo archive and looks good, except there seems to be a "2" in the middle of your title?
2. Please check the capitalization in your references. For example, Grozev et al has "australia" uncapitalized. You can preserve capitalization by putting {} around characters or strings in your .bib file.

[nick-gorman]

Thanks @kthyng

Not sure how that 2 got there, or how I didn't see it. Good tip with the curly brackets.

These issues should be resolved.

[kthyng]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[kthyng]

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[kthyng]

@nick-gorman ok everything looks good! But, do you want me to accept this submission from the joss-paper branch or were you going to merge it first? Either way is fine, I just need to know which.

[nick-gorman]

@kthyng I've just merged joss-paper into master, so should be good to go from master

[kthyng]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[kthyng]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03596 joss-papers#2938
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03596
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kthyng]

Congratulations on your new publication @nick-gorman! Many thanks to editor @timtroendle and reviewers @noah80 and @robinroche for your time, hard work, and expertise!!

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03596/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03596)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03596">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03596/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03596/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03596

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[nick-gorman]

Thank you @noah80 @robinroche @timtroendle and @kthyng!