Incubator articles update
Here are four updated incubator articles in a seperated branch:
Activity
assigned to @ira.gerloff and @schmidt4earth
added editorreview label
Dear Ira and Christiane:
Thank you very much for your support!
Ira I do the first two articles (DO IT! & GeoQAmap) and Christiane does the other two (Climate Impact Data Extraction & Steam Scraiber). When we have finished the review, the other two (Jie & Christiane for Ira and vice versa Jie & Ira for Christiane) will go through the articles again and if there are any uncertainties about the content, we can ask Hela or Klaus.
Let me know if I can do anything to support better. Thanks a lot.
best wishes, Jie
Dear Jie, I have edited the Stream Scraiber article. As I have done substantial text revision in the abstract for flow and understanding, I suggest to play back the article to the author to confirm the changes. I will email you the article as well, to make sure the edits have been taken by the system. Best, Christiane
marked the checklist item DO IT! as completed
marked the checklist item GeoQAmap as completed
I had a read through these 4 (comments to the others in prep, all coming today).
DO IT! I think this needs at least one more round of maturation. I have problems understanding what this is about. Here some details:
I am missing a definition of ›analogue records‹. I had some idea, then watched the tutorial, and that was different from what I thought. There is 'earth system sciences' in the first line. I think this is something we consistently capitalise. If not already in, this maybe should go in to the style guidelines. As we are luckily not US based, I suggest to translate ›manpower‹ into something more gender-neutral, e.g., workforce, personnel, human resources, … ›necessarily with scientific background‹ -> ›necessarily with a scientific background‹ or ›necessarily with scientific backgrounds‹ › Breaking down the digitization to an easy applicable smartphone application‹ What is this about? This needs some explanation what is digitised, and why it is possible that citizens do this. Even if this is an abstract, I don’t know what they are talking about. And again replace ›manpower‹ later in this sentence. ›can be applicable‹ -> ›is applicable‹ ›applicable to all kind of analogue data‹ add at least 2-3 examples ›analogue data and hence useful for numerous‹ -> ›analogue data and is, hence, useful for numerous‹ ›we were able to develop a functioning concept from an idea‹ What idea? I still don’t know what this is about. ›The website is fully operational and can be used by users.‹ -> ›The website is fully operational.‹
I made a couple of additional edits and comments (in brackets) directly in the text. So everything in the brackets needs to be deleted.
The image is taking up a lot of space, but is not very useful to me. I would put this in the GitLab of the app itself and add a much more abstract image here.
-
GeoQAmap:
In DO IT! in the Resources it was called ›Tutorial‹, here ›Video‹. Should be aligned.
I do not understand the title of this article, and being confused already from the title is not ideal. So I suggest a title that attracts more readers. E.g.: GeoQAMap: a prompt accessed Q&A system for geospatial data I think ›Earth Data‹ is a bit too generic and needs to be more specific, e.g., ›geospatial data‹
Otherwise this sounds like a really interesting project, unfortunately I have to more guess what it is about, but don’t really understand it. Here I don’t mean the authors need to change something. However, I would really be interested what exactly this is about. So I suggest to add a paragraph that summarises the project in terms for the interested non-specialist ESS, e.g., an ESS from cosmochemsitry such as me. Nature, for example, requires such short paragraphs for their articles. Not sure how such a section could be called, maybe simply Summary, Overview, Highlights, Context, Essentials, Scope, or At a Glance. The ›Background‹ already covers something, but information such as science domain and less technical could be beneficial.
The image needs explanation. What do the WP1, WP2, … mean? Likely work package, but this does not make sense here.
Thank you Dominik for your feedback! Your comments are absolutely conclusive. The feedback should also go to Udo Feuerhake as the author of these texts. I had already noticed differences between the articles for the LHB and Gitlab. Jie informed Udo about the differences and he checked the texts again.
-
Steam ScrAIber
Also here a more meaningful title would be helpful.
The abstract stops a bit short. I was expecting 1-2 sentences about the project itself. I also have the impression here and in similar articles that the structure with only ›Abstract‹ and ›Outcomes and Trends‹ does not make sense. In particular when the abstract is even longer than the ›Outcomes and Trends‹. There needs to be an ›Introduction‹ or ›Background‹. This is readily clear from the ›Outcomes and Trends‹: the first sentence is unclear to me, as I don’t know what ›Steam Scraber‹ is all about. This requires some explanation what the idea of the project is, describe the project itself, and how it was executed.
I put some comments in brackets in the text and made some minor corrections. In general I do not really understand the ›Outcomes and Trends‹ section. I still don’t know what Steam ScAIber is, what it can do, or where I can use it. This needs to be part of this article.
@Jie maybe this is something for the next LHB EB meeting: how an incubator/pilot or the like article needs to be structure and refer to an example article. Also, incubators and pilots should sign before applying for a grant that they will deliver such an article in time.
In ›Resources‹, this has a ›final report‹. What about the others?
-
Web-based, user-driven climate impact data extraction
This article also needs a ›Summary‹ or whatever for interested readers unfamiliar with this topic. In fact, this article is a great showcase why such a Summary is important, because, as the authors state themselves, this is something of great relevance for many sectors (I guess they mean domain? Maybe replace.)
I made a couple of changes in the document and left comments in brackets.
marked the checklist item climate impact data extraction as completed
marked the checklist item Steam Scraiber as completed
assigned to @udo.feuerhake
Dear Udo @udo.feuerhake :
Thank you very much for your support.
Dominik has reviewed the four new incubator articles you submitted. Based on his comments, certain clarifications and revisions are needed for each article.
Since these articles were submitted by you, we would like to ask if you could help establish a connection between us and the authors. This way, I can directly share the feedback with them. Alternatively, do you have any other suggestions on how we should proceed?
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks again, Udo!
Best wishes, Jie