Use of R package review guidelines in independent manuscript review

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fc8bceac400> #<Tag:0x00007fc8bceac270>

Package or resource used

rOpenSci package development guide book

URL or code snippet for your use case

Image

Sector

academic

Field(s) of application

academic manuscript review

Twitter handle

Hao Ye is hao_and_y on Twitter

What did you do?

Quoted from Hao Ye @hye in the blog post:

When I was asked to review the code for the pavo 2.0 manuscript1, I had an initial moment of panic – I had no experience doing formal code review. Luckily, I knew that rOpenSci had a set of reviewing guidelines, and that a few MEE Applications papers had used them. The same guidelines are also used by the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Although this submission wasn’t flagged for rOpenSci review, I didn’t see a conflict with using their guidelines for my task.

The checklist helped me to organise my review. I started with the basic package review template, and then focused on a detailed look at the primary vignette (which is where I expect most users start). The rOpenSci guidelines encourage the use of some automated tools, like goodpractice to facilitate reviewing. The hardest part was providing suggestions to address what the goodpractice::gp() function flagged as complex or redundant code. The remainder of the review went pretty smoothly. I’m a fan of task checklists, so I’m glad that the authors found my comments useful. Hopefully the changes will help with the future maintenance of the package."

1 Like

Sorry I never got around to doing this myself!

1 Like

Well you did the work for the blog post (and the Community Call, and answering questions…) and that’s plenty! Thanks so much for all of that Hao.

1 Like