Submission: rgtracker (R)

Submitting Author:

Javairia (@jraza19),
Jianru (@jianructose),
Vu (@tdkhanhvu),
Yanhua (@yhchen20)

Repository: rgtracker Version submitted: 0.3.0 Editor: Tiffany Timbers(@ttimbers ) Reviewers: @JacobMcFarlane @syadk

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: rgtracker
Title: Grade Tracker 
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: 
    c(person(given = "Javairia",
           family = "Raza",
           role = c("aut", "cre"),
           email = "jr.jem19@gmail.com"),
      person(given = "Yanhua",
           family = "Chen",
           role = c("aut")),
      person(given = "Jianru",
           family = "Deng",
           role = c("aut")),
      person(given = "Doan Khanh Vu",
           family = "Tran",
           role = c("aut"))
           )
Description: This package provide UBC MDS lecturers to record, analyze and adjust grades for students in the MDS program.
License: LGPL (>= 2.1)
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.1.1
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0),
    knitr,
    rmarkdown,
    devtools,
    readr,
    covr
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports: 
    dplyr,
    magrittr,
    rlang,
    tidyr,
    stats
URL: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/rgtracker
BugReports: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/rgtracker/issues
VignetteBuilder: knitr

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):
- [ ] data retrieval
- [ ] data extraction
- [ ] data munging
- [ ] data deposition
- [ ] workflow automation
- [ ] version control
- [ ] citation management and bibliometrics
- [ ] scientific software wrappers
- [ ] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [ ] text analysis
- [x] other (teaching analytics as education technology)
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

The package rgtracker does not explicitly fall under any of the categories listed above. After the discussion with the editor, we concluded it could fall into the category as other (teaching analytics for education technology). However, rgtracker does include some data extraction and munging, as well as for workflow automation purpose.

Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

The target audience for rgtracker is intended for instructors and teaching team in UBC MDS program specifically. The application of rgtracker leans towards more practical side rather than scientific ones, which includes teaching and learning analytics. The teaching team is able to adjust the grades for students to ensure the final average grades match the expected benchmarks of student performance.

Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

Through a search of the CRAN library of available R packages to date, we have found that there is no exact package that performs the functionality of our functions as one package together. There are existing packages that grade students papers, gradeR and returns the results of the grading for students. There is also another package called ProfessR that scales grades, plots the grades and calculates summary statistics (maximum, mean and minimum). However, rgtracker is specifically for UBC MDS program teaching scheme and philosophy.

(If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?
If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

[x] I have read the guide for authors and rOpenSci packaging guide.

This package:

[x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
[ ] has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
[x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
[x] includes documentation with examples for all functions, created with roxygen2.
[x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
[x] has a test suite.
[x] has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage using services such as Travis CI, Coveralls and/or CodeCov.

Publication options

[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?
[ ] Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

- [ ] The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal. - [ ] The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words. - [ ] You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see [MEE's Policy on Publishing Code](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/journal-resources/policy-on-publishing-code.html)) - (*Scope: Do consider MEE's [Aims and Scope](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope.html) for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.*) - (*Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.*) - (*Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution*)

Code of conduct

[x] I agree to abide by rOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[x] Examples (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

[ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

[ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software

[ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations

[ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.

[ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 2

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Nice work on the package. MDS courses are short but there are a lot of them and it must be difficult to keep track of for both students and instructors; I think this package could be very useful! Here's a few things you may want to address:

the devtools::test() passes all 63 tests. However, the devtools::check() returns a warning checking for unstated dependencies in examples ... OK WARNING ‘qpdf’ is needed for checks on size reduction of PDFs The installation of the package qpdf is not trivial and I couldn't seem to install it. This issue was also present with my own package so I think it's an issue on my side, however, I thought it's something you should be aware of.
Lines 268 and 276 of frgtracker.R, consider using <- for variable assignment instead of =
There are two variables at the start of the frgtracker.R file, mds_courses and mds_assess, that are undocumented. It looks like they are used further down in the record_grades() function, but I think it can be better documented and perhaps moved to be above the record_grades() function
Before and after every function in frgtracker.R you have a comment saying the function starts and ends with a one line gap. I see the intent to be clear, but I think this actually makes it slightly more difficult to read through the code and figure out where the functions really start and end. I think getting rid of these extra comments and relying on the roxygen documentation to signify function starts would improve readability.
From the example in the vignette of suggest_grade_adjustments(), it's a little unclear what the function is doing and how someone would go about using it without taking a much closer look at the actual code for it.

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[ ] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[x] Examples (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

[ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

[ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software

[ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations

[ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.

[ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Overall, very a great package! I had a few recommendations.

As the previous reviewer suggested, consider changing the documentation for suggest_grade_adjustments(). 'Adjusted upwards' is a little vague- when you say adjusted upwards to meet or exceed benchmarks are you setting grades to the values provided to the corresponding arguments in the function? Or is there something else going on under the hood?
I was unable to find your vignette locally on my machine after installing and loading your package. I can see it on the packagedown page, so it's not a big thing but you might consider looking into it.
There is a small error in the documentation for register_courses() unless I am mistaken. The Roxygen string documentation does not specify a return but the function seems to return a dataframe.
You have the same issue in record_grades() as discussed in the comment about register_courses()
Consider removing the pipes in the function bodies. That way you can remove magritr as a dependency and make the package a little lighter.

Hi @JacobMcFarlane and @syadk,

Thanks for all constructive feedbacks for our package under developing! Our group will look into further and may polish rgtracker better.

UBC-MDS / software-review-2021