Submission: RSimplerEDA (R)

Submitting Author: Chuck Ho (@ChuckHo777), Deepak Sidhu (@deepaksidhu), Nick Wu (@nichowu)

Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/RSimplerEDA Version submitted: v0.3.0 Editor: Tiffany Timbers (@ttimbers ) Reviewer 1: TBD Reviewer 2: TBD Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD

Description

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: RSimplerEDA
Title: simpler_eda_r
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R:
    c(person("Chuck", "Ho", email = "deepcl@student.ubc.ca", role = c("aut", "cre")),
    person("Nick", "Wu", email = "https://github.com/nichowu", role = "aut"),
    person("Deepak", "Sidhu", email = "https://github.com/deepaksidhu", role = "aut"))
Description:  A package to help plotting 3 types of common EDA plots
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0),
    covr,
    knitr,
    rmarkdown
Config/testthat/edition: 3
RoxygenNote: 7.1.1
Imports: 
    ggplot2,
    dplyr,
    stringr,
    tibble,
    tidyr,
    ggthemes,
    assertthat,
    rlang,
    palmerpenguins,
    magrittr
URL: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/RSimplerEDA
BugReports: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/RSimplerEDA/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
- [x] data munging
- [ ] data deposition
- [x] workflow automation
- [ ] version control
- [ ] citation management and bibliometrics
- [ ] scientific software wrappers
- [ ] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [ ] text analysis
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

This package provides 3 functions to automatically generate respective exploratory data analysis with one line of code. It helps streamline the workflow on data wrangling and plotting.
Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

The target audience for our package includes anyone that wants to conduct exploratory data analysis on a dataset. It would be particularly useful for data scientists and data analysts. The scientific applications of this package are that users can plot out exploratory data analysis plots by the input of the user when calling the respective functions in the package.
Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

There are a number of packages that already provide similar functionality in the R Ecosystem, such as DataExplorer and SmartEDA. However, most of them are not easily customizable. Our RSimplerEda package is light-weighted with focus in 3 common EDA plots and allows flexibility from plot types, color scheme, to plot titles.

(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.
[x] 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

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

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

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

[X] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations

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

[X] 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

Great job team! I really like the idea as these are the plots that everyone wants to use during EDA and this package makes it easy to use them just by changing a few parameters.

The plots are nicely created with consistent themes, title and axis label sizes. However, it would be nice to have x-axis and y-axis labels in a more stylistic way or maybe added as a parameter.
I like the clear explanations for each function in the vignette. I tried plotting a line graph using numerical_eda() and it worked well. Maybe the small description on how to change the graph or which parameter to use would be helpful to the users.
The functions are well written. I really liked how the defensive approach is used in each function!
The codes are formatted properly and the function description is succinct. However, the code still has the potential to follow DRY principles.
README is well written and I could clearly understand the installations and usage instructions.

Again, well done team!

Hi @sukh2929

Thanks for your constructive feedback. I'm glad that you liked our idea of the package.

I will be in contact with my teammates and discuss further improvement based on your suggestion.

Thanks,

Nicholas

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in the 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.
- I am in the same year of the MDS program as the authors of this package
[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 the 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: 2.5

[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

Hi RSimplerEDA team 👋🏽,

Congratulations! Great job on the package. The package would be really helpful in reducing the coding efforts for common plots in the EDA.

I do not have any errors to report. Just some notes that you may want to consider 🙂

Function:

For corr_map(), when the input data-frame has missing values, it generates a plot as shown below:

review

As the gray color is not labeled in the plot, labeling that accordingly in the plot / throw a warning to the user might be useful.

Documentation

DESCRIPTION File

Update version to reflect the version of the Github repository
Minor notes that show up in the R-CMD-check at line 60 and 70 Reference link

Overall, I enjoyed going through the package and very much liked the detailed function documentation and the tests that cover all the edge cases.

Congratulations again on finishing this package and please do let me know if you have any questions about my comments.

Chirag

UBC-MDS / software-review-2021