from: Sang-Ki Lee - NOAA Federal to: Courtney Bouchard - NOAA Federal date: Feb 1, 2023, 5:50 AM subject: Re: Review of SIP 4XRWRD Hi Courtney, 1. I noticed you provided a reference paper for this that is still under review. We unfortunately don't add papers that are under review. But if you'd like to contact us again once the paper is published then we will happily add this to the landing page as a cross reference. The paper is tentatively accepted. I am submitting the final version this Friday that addresses minor comments. I will contact you as soon as the paper is accepted. If I remember correctly, the journal also requires a web link for the dataset before the paper is accepted. 2. It would be beneficial to archive this dataset with some type of readme file (.txt, .pdf, or .doc) that would provide a high level description of the model and the naming convention of the files and variable names that you've provided. The NetCDF files suggest that it is a NCAR cesm1_2_2. You can just email that to me and I can add it to the data package on my end for you. (You can reply with a simple yes you will add it for now and provide it before we publish the dataset) README.txt file is attached here. Could you also remove "Sampling and Analyzing Method" descriptions for the zip files because they are now described in README.txt. Please note that we do not specify the model name (cesm1_2_2) in README.txt because it is more or less irrelevant to this dataset. 3. Along those lines I just wanted to double check with you that the time variable is how you'd like it. It looks like for every file the "time" variable is the same value (i.e. 164797.5) and it seems to represent a mean value of time. Is that intentional because each is a decadal average so the time variable is essentially a dummy variable? I just wanted to double check that you'd like to keep it that way. If so, that'd be something to add to a readme file so that future users can understand. Yes, time is a dummy variable. But, I prefer to keep the time variable in case a user wants to merge some of the files. I made it clear in README.txt that all files are time-averaged for specific time periods. 3. Along with that, I typically run netcdf files through compliance checkers for the common formats to quickly see if there are major issues. A few were flagged for your dataset and I've attached a sample pdf of the compliance checker report to this email if you'd like to look through it (all the files had the same flags). If you don't think the changes are necessary to the netcdf files, I think the data are readable by a user as is (with a good readme file), but I just wanted you to be aware of this. Thank you for checking the netcdf files. I think the files are ok as they are. 4. Would you need a DOI minted for this dataset? We ask the providers to write a note in the comments section for this, but I thought I'd ask because typically model data submissions inquire about minting DOI's. That would be great. I do wish to have a DOI for this dataset. Once I receive a reply, I will go ahead and request that we accept this submission and then I will work on adding the metadata that is required on our end to publish the package. You will receive two emails in that process, one to indicate that we've accepted the dataset and assigned it an ID and landing page and a second that indicates that we've published the dataset. And one more if you are requesting a DOI be minted for this data. Thank you for submitting your data with NCEI, it looks like a very valuable dataset to include in our archives. Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions if any of my comments were confusing to you. Thank you so much, Courtney! Sang-Ki ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- from: Courtney Bouchard - NOAA Federal to: Sang-ki Lee - NOAA Federal date: Jan 31, 2023, 4:21 PM subject: Review of SIP 4XRWRD Hello Sang-ki, I hope you're well. I'm the DCM that was assigned to review your submission for the SIP 4XRWRD: Hydrographic data-constrained estimates of the global meridional overturning circulation (GMOC) and its interdecadal changes. I just had a few clarifying questions/comments for the dataset so that I can provide the correct amount of metadata for future users. 1. I noticed you provided a reference paper for this that is still under review. We unfortunately don't add papers that are under review. But if you'd like to contact us again once the paper is published then we will happily add this to the landing page as a cross reference. 2. It would be beneficial to archive this dataset with some type of readme file (.txt, .pdf, or .doc) that would provide a high level description of the model and the naming convention of the files and variable names that you've provided. The NetCDF files suggest that it is a NCAR cesm1_2_2. You can just email that to me and I can add it to the data package on my end for you. (You can reply with a simple yes you will add it for now and provide it before we publish the dataset) 3. Along those lines I just wanted to double check with you that the time variable is how you'd like it. It looks like for every file the "time" variable is the same value (i.e. 164797.5) and it seems to represent a mean value of time. Is that intentional because each is a decadal average so the time variable is essentially a dummy variable? I just wanted to double check that you'd like to keep it that way. If so, that'd be something to add to a readme file so that future users can understand. 3. Along with that, I typically run netcdf files through compliance checkers for the common formats to quickly see if there are major issues. A few were flagged for your dataset and I've attached a sample pdf of the compliance checker report to this email if you'd like to look through it (all the files had the same flags). If you don't think the changes are necessary to the netcdf files, I think the data are readable by a user as is (with a good readme file), but I just wanted you to be aware of this. 4. Would you need a DOI minted for this dataset? We ask the providers to write a note in the comments section for this, but I thought I'd ask because typically model data submissions inquire about minting DOI's. Once I receive a reply, I will go ahead and request that we accept this submission and then I will work on adding the metadata that is required on our end to publish the package. You will receive two emails in that process, one to indicate that we've accepted the dataset and assigned it an ID and landing page and a second that indicates that we've published the dataset. And one more if you are requesting a DOI be minted for this data. Thank you for submitting your data with NCEI, it looks like a very valuable dataset to include in our archives. Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions if any of my comments were confusing to you. /Courtney