Just enter your email
OGRS2016 reviewer report
Name of the reviewer Paula AHONEN-RAINIO, Aalto University, School of Engineering, Finland
Title of the Short Paper The Open Data GeoPortal of the Lamma Consortium
Does the submission provide adequate motivation and interesting conclusions? Poor
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? No
Is the submission technically sound? Fair
Are the results clearly described and critically evaluated? Poor
Is the submission clearly written and logically structured? Poor
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) ? Fair
Does the submission aptly argue the open source approach ? Fair
What is the dominant among the below elements of typology? The contribution is rather thematic, that is to say mainly addresses a case study
I recommend the contribution for a poster presentation
Comments for the authors "The challenge touched in the paper, the need for preprocessing of meteorological (or similarly complex) data, is real. However, the paper does not elaborate the issue in detail.
The abstract is too long, however without clear information about the objectives and results of the paper. Instead of copy-pasting (long) parts of the paper, it should be rewritten.
The objective remains unclear even after reading the section titled as Introduction; it describes the motivation for open data in general rather than introduces what the paper is about. The first two sections should be replaced by a proper Introduction. (Text on line 104 states “But, in general, because of the dynamicity of meteorological datasets, the focal point of all the work was to set up…”. Is this not the main point of the paper as well?)
The main information seems to be in sections “Dynamic data availability” and “Methods and Materials”; however, rewording of the subtitles is recommended.
There is no discussion nor conclusion in the paper. At the end, a long list of references is given but they are not cited in the paper!
This work might provide a good starting point for a poster, concentrating on the technical solution.
Overall index of quality of the manuscript from 0 (poor quality) to 10 (good quality), passing from 5 (fair quality) 5