-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 104
/
README.Rmd
148 lines (101 loc) · 6.4 KB
/
README.Rmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
---
output: github_document
---
```{r, echo = FALSE, message=FALSE, warning=FALSE}
library("airtabler")
library("purrr")
knitr::opts_chunk$set(
collapse = TRUE,
comment = "#>",
fig.path = "README-",
message = FALSE,
warning = FALSE
)
```
# rOpenSci Software Peer Review
_[README en español](README.es.md)_
<!-- README.md is generated from README.Rmd. Please edit that file -->
Thank you for considering submitting your package to the rOpenSci suite. All
the packages contributed by community members go through a process of [open peer review](https://ropensci.org/blog/2017/09/01/nf-softwarereview/) to ensure a consistent level of quality for our users. This process also allows us to ensure that your package meets our guidelines and provides opportunity for discussion where exceptions are requested.
This README is a short intro to Software Peer Review for you as a potential author or reviewer. For more information, consult our [gitbook "rOpenSci Packages: Development, Maintenance, and Peer Review"](https://devguide.ropensci.org/).
**Our [code of conduct](https://ropensci.org/code-of-conduct/) is mandatory for everyone involved in our review process.**
* [Why and how submit your package to rOpenSci?](#why-submit)
* [Why and how review for rOpenSci?](#why-review)
* [Further resources](#further)
* [Editors and reviewers](#editors)
# <a href="#why-submit" name="why-submit"></a>Why and how submit your package to rOpenSci?
- First, and foremost, we hope you submit your package for review **because you
value the feedback**. We aim to provide useful feedback to package authors
and for our review process to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on
improving software quality.
- Once aboard, your package will continue to receive **support from rOpenSci
members**. You'll retain ownership and control of your package, but we
can help with ongoing maintenance issues such as those associated with
updates to R and dependencies and CRAN policies.
- rOpenSci will **promote your package** through our [webpage](https://ropensci.org/packages/), [blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/), and [social media](https://twitter.com/ropensci). Packages in our suite also get a [documentation website that is automatically built and deployed after each push](https://devguide.ropensci.org/building.html#docsropensci).
- rOpenSci **packages can be cross-listed** with other repositories such as CRAN
and BioConductor.
- rOpenSci packages that contain a short accompanying paper can, after review,
be automatically submitted to the
[Journal of Open-Source Software](http://joss.theoj.org/) for fast-tracked
publication.
If you want to submit a package, read our [guide for authors](https://devguide.ropensci.org/authors-guide.html) before opening a submission issue in this repository.
## <a href="#why-review" name="why-review"></a>Why and how to review packages for rOpenSci?
- As in any peer-review process, we hope you choose to review **to give back
to the rOpenSci and scientific communities.** Our mission to expand
access to scientific data and promote a culture of reproducible research
is only possible through the volunteer efforts of community members like you.
- Review is a two-way conversation. By reviewing packages, you'll have the
chance to **continue to learn development practices from authors and
other reviewers**.
- The open nature of our review process allows you to **network and meet
colleagues and collaborators** through the review process. Our community
is friendly and filled with supportive members expert in R development and
many other areas of science and scientific computing.
To volunteer to be one of our reviewers, please fill out this [short form](https://ropensci.org/software-reviewer/) providing your contact information and areas or expertise. We are always looking for more reviewers with both general package-writing experience and domain expertise in the fields packages are used for.
Please also read [our guide for reviewers](https://devguide.ropensci.org/reviewerguide.html).
## <a href="#further" name="further"></a>Further resources
Our [gitbook "rOpenSci Packages: Development, Maintenance, and Peer Review"](https://devguide.ropensci.org/) also includes:
* [a guide for editors](https://devguide.ropensci.org/editorguide.html)
* [our policies](https://devguide.ropensci.org/policies.html)
* chapters dedicating to good practice for package maintenance
* different templates: [review template](https://devguide.ropensci.org/reviewtemplate.html), [editor's template](https://devguide.ropensci.org/editortemplate.html), [review request template](https://devguide.ropensci.org/reviewrequesttemplate.html).
Our review process is always in development, and we encourage feedback and discussion
on how to improve the process on our [forum](https://discuss.ropensci.org/) and in the [ropensci/software-review-meta issue tracker](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues).
# <a href="#editors" name="editors"></a> Editors and reviewers
rOpenSci's Software Peer Review process is run by our team of dedicated editors and reviewers.
Information on the current team, and the current status of software peer review, can be seen on our [interactive dashboard](https://ropensci-review-tools.github.io/dashboard/).
```{r}
#| echo: false
#| results: 'asis'
source(file.path("scripts", "airtable-get-data.R"), local = knitr::knit_global())
```
### Editor-in-Chief
```{r}
#| echo: false
#| results: 'asis'
source(file.path("scripts", "airtable-get-eic.R"), local = knitr::knit_global())
```
### Editorial team
Our current team of editors for software peer-review includes:
```{r}
#| echo: false
#| results: 'asis'
source(file.path("scripts", "airtable-get-editors.R"), local = knitr::knit_global())
```
### Reviewers and former editors
We are grateful to the following individuals who have offered up their time and expertise to review packages submitted to rOpenSci.
```{r}
#| echo: false
#| results: 'asis'
source(file.path("scripts", "airtable-get-reviewers.R"), local = knitr::knit_global())
```
We are also grateful to the following individuals who have previously served as editors.
```{r editors_past, echo=FALSE, results='asis'}
cat(gen_ed_out(editors_past), sep = "")
```
And the following who have served as guest editors.
```{r guest-editors-out, echo=FALSE, results='asis'}
cat(gen_ed_out(guest_editors), sep = "")
```