The README of the onboarding repo now states very clearly why to review packages for rOpenSci, but it does not mention any criteria for becoming a reviewer.
I’ve for instance been asked by someone with programming experience but no R package development experience whether they could become a reviewer. Should the README include a sentence about who can become a reviewer (so that potential reviewers don’t feel intimidated before volunteering)? And if it does, what should this sentence be?
We are trying to move towards having two reviewers for all reviews at this point. With two reviewers, I am comfortable with one reviewer having experience with package development, and another having R programming experience and domain knowledge related to the package’s uses.
That said, I don’t want to “split” the review - as in the case of journal paper reviews - I’d like all reviewers to review the package comprehensively, though from their particular perspective.
One thing that may help is moving to a more robust “checklist” for reviewers that’s closely tied to the packaging guide. That’s what we’re moving towards in the JOSS-harmonization revision. @hrbrmstr’s geoparser review is also a great example of checklist-type. A checklist is no substitute for experience, but it would help a new reviewer, especially when they are paired with a more experienced one.
We have been discussing reviewer training. I guess the very short version would be to ask that reviewers read our packaging guide and Hadley’s R Packages.
I was about to say we should start adding volunteers to our database, but I see @sckott has already started. I guess we should add to the notes something about package development experience.
I should also probably write down somewhere what I look for and how I go about looking for reviewers:
What I look for:
Some package development experience (searching CRAN and the potential reviewer’s github page for evidence they’ve developed a package)
Some domain experience (again, often looking at their github page, home page or publications to find some experience with code that’s, say, geospatial or does text-mining or whatever the domain of the package is).
No conflicts of interest - sometimes I find cross-citations/dependencies between the package and a reviewer and I ask in the recruitment e-mail if they are involved somehow.
I try to balance my sense of the potential reviewer’s experience against the complexity of the package.
Diversity - with two reviewers both shouldn’t be cis white males.
Where I look:
I check our database for people who haven’t reviewed in six months
I ping our #onboarding slack channel for recommendations on who is good. (This is 90% a conversation between the editors and a bit of other rOpenSci leadership, but is open to anyone on the Slack)
I scour the ROpenSci website and unconf listings for people within our community already but haven’t reviewed.
I look for people active on on twitter, usually on the #rstats hashtag, and also in the feed of @RWomenTaskforce
I search for authors of related packages on r-pkg.org, then look for them on GitHub, Twitter, or a website for some evidence that they’re interested in openness or R community activities. Even if not, I still blind e-mail some.
I added a short bit (mindful that the README is getting long):
To volunteer to be one of our reviewers, please e-mail us at info@ropensci.org or contact us on Twitter at @rOpenSci. We are always
looking for more reviewers with both general package-writing experience and
domain expertise in the fields packages are used for.
@noamross is it that bad that the README is getting long, since there is a table of contents at the beginning? Regarding package development experience, maybe you could add a link to Hadley’s R Packages book since you mentioned it here?
By the way the description of the repo is very short (“rOpenSci Onboarding”) -> would more details, e.g. “Each issue = 1 review” be useful?