Just enter your email
OGRS2016 reviewer report
Name of the reviewer Christian KAISER, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Title of the Short Paper HELP - An Early warning dashboard System, built for the prevention, mitigation and assessment of disasters, with a flexible approach using open data and open source technologies
Does the submission provide adequate motivation and interesting conclusions? Fair
Does the submission address a challenging or new theoretical/practical issue? Yes
Does the submission present a new approach to an issue or does it put forward a novel combination of existing ideas or techniques? Yes
Is the submission technically sound? Good
Are the results clearly described and critically evaluated? Poor
Is the submission clearly written and logically structured? Fair
Does the submission correctly situate itself within the context of existing research literature? Poor
Is the paper closely related to OGRS scope with a content interesting to the OGRS attendees (geospatial research and/or education) ? Good
Does the submission aptly argue the open source approach ? Fair
What is the dominant among the below elements of typology? The contribution is addressing some software development efforts
I recommend the contribution for a poster presentation
Comments for the authors "The paper describes the implementation of an open source solution for an insteresting case study and deserves attention. However, the paper has several considerable shortcomings:
1. The paper does not have any reference to existing research, and does not situate itself in any current research context
2. The paper does not describe any other possible alternative, it does not make any comparison with other possible software solutions, with advantages and disadvantages. There is no justification for the choice of the used software stack.
3. As it appears in the paper, the authors had to write some code on their own, but it is not clear if this code is available somewhere. It would be interesting to have access to all the code as open source solution in order to built on the work that had been done.
4. The paper does not have a conclusion or any discussion, both of which are required for a valuable contribution.
5. The paper requires some spell and grammar checking (e.g. on page 4: ""A conditions acts ..."" or ""infotmation"")"
Overall index of quality of the manuscript from 0 (poor quality) to 10 (good quality), passing from 5 (fair quality) 5