search

ropensci / software-review

rOpenSci Software Peer Review.
295 stars 104 forks source link

CRediTas: a tiny package to generate CRediT authors statements #576

Closed jospueyo closed 1 year ago

jospueyo commented 1 year ago

Date accepted: 2023-04-11

Submitting Author Name: Josep Pueyo-Ros Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@jospueyo<!--end-author1-- Repository: https://github.com/jospueyo/CRediTas Version submitted: 0.1.0 Submission type: Standard Editor: !--editor-->@emilyriederer<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @zambujo, @msperlin

Due date for @zambujo: 2023-04-04 Due date for @msperlin: 2023-04-06

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: en

Package: CRediTas
Type: Package
Title: Generate CRediT Author Statements
Version: 0.1.0
Authors@R: 
    c(
      person(given = "Josep", family = "Pueyo-Ros", email = "josep.pueyo@udg.edu", 
      role = c("aut", "cre"), comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-1236-5651")))
Description: CRediTas is a tiny package to generate CRediT author statements (https://credit.niso.org/). 
    It provides three functions: create a template, read it back and generate the CRediT author statement in a text file.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
URL: https://github.com/jospueyo/creditas
BugReports: https://github.com/jospueyo/creditas/issues
RoxygenNote: 7.2.1
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3

Scope

The package facilitates the creation of CRediT author statements, which are mandatory for many journals and encourage good practices in coauthoring scientific publications.

The target audience are authors of scientific publications. There are not scientific applications of this package. It helps in the good practices of open science.

There are not as far as I know

Not applicable

Long lines in test-write_cras.R because I compare a string with a generated text file. If I break the lines I cannot compare both. Avoid T and F in write_cras.R: I do not use T or F, in line 1, there is "CRediT" which confounds the algorithm.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

This package:

Publication options

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

jospueyo commented 1 year ago

Thank you for these final insights, @zambujo!

I followed all your suggestions except using normalizePath because then the tests failed. Also, I don't fully understand what it does. So, I'd be happy if you could help me in this if you consider important using normalizePath.

I also updated the NEWS, which I forgot in the last review.

Best wishes!

zambujo commented 1 year ago

Reviewer Response

Final approval (post-review)

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1

emilyriederer commented 1 year ago

@ropensci-review-bot submit review https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/576#issuecomment-1494981269 time 5

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

Logged review for zambujo (hours: 5)

emilyriederer commented 1 year ago

@ropensci-review-bot submit review https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/576#issuecomment-1476722900 time 1.5

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

Logged review for msperlin (hours: 1.5)

emilyriederer commented 1 year ago

Thanks to @zambujo and @msperlin for their thoughtful reviews and @jospueyo for his fast follow-ups! I'm happy to say it looks like we are ready to approve this package :tada:

@jospueyo , I'll submit the "formal approval" now. Please make sure to read the instructions the bot shares carefully! There's a lot of great information in there regarding repo transfer and package promotion.

emilyriederer commented 1 year ago

@ropensci-review-bot approve CRediTas

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

Approved! Thanks @jospueyo for submitting and @zambujo, @msperlin for your reviews! :grin:

To-dos:

Should you want to acknowledge your reviewers in your package DESCRIPTION, you can do so by making them "rev"-type contributors in the Authors@R field (with their consent).

Welcome aboard! We'd love to host a post about your package - either a short introduction to it with an example for a technical audience or a longer post with some narrative about its development or something you learned, and an example of its use for a broader readership. If you are interested, consult the blog guide, and tag @ropensci/blog-editors in your reply. They will get in touch about timing and can answer any questions.

We maintain an online book with our best practice and tips, this chapter starts the 3d section that's about guidance for after onboarding (with advice on releases, package marketing, GitHub grooming); the guide also feature CRAN gotchas. Please tell us what could be improved.

Last but not least, you can volunteer as a reviewer via filling a short form.

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@ropensci-review-bot help

jospueyo commented 1 year ago

@ropensci-review-bot finalize transfer of CRediTas

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 year ago

Transfer completed. The CRediTas team is now owner of the repository and the author has been invited to the team

jospueyo commented 1 year ago

Approved! Thanks @jospueyo for submitting and @zambujo, @msperlin for your reviews! 😁

To-dos:

  • [x] Transfer the repo to rOpenSci's "ropensci" GitHub organization under "Settings" in your repo. I have invited you to a team that should allow you to do so. You will need to enable two-factor authentication for your GitHub account. This invitation will expire after one week. If it happens write a comment @ropensci-review-bot invite me to ropensci/<package-name> which will re-send an invitation.
  • [x] After transfer write a comment @ropensci-review-bot finalize transfer of <package-name> where <package-name> is the repo/package name. This will give you admin access back.
  • [x] Fix all links to the GitHub repo to point to the repo under the ropensci organization.
  • [x] Delete your current code of conduct file if you had one since rOpenSci's default one will apply, see https://devguide.ropensci.org/collaboration.html#coc-file

  • [x] If you already had a pkgdown website and are ok relying only on rOpenSci central docs building and branding,

    • deactivate the automatic deployment you might have set up
    • remove styling tweaks from your pkgdown config but keep that config file
    • replace the whole current pkgdown website with a redirecting page
    • replace your package docs URL with https://docs.ropensci.org/package_name
    • In addition, in your DESCRIPTION file, include the docs link in the URL field alongside the link to the GitHub repository, e.g.: URL: https://docs.ropensci.org/foobar, https://github.com/ropensci/foobar
  • [x] Skim the docs of the pkgdown automatic deployment, in particular if your website needs MathJax.
  • [x] Fix any links in badges for CI and coverage to point to the new repository URL.
  • [x] Increment the package version to reflect the changes you made during review. In NEWS.md, add a heading for the new version and one bullet for each user-facing change, and each developer-facing change that you think is relevant.
  • [x] We're starting to roll out software metadata files to all rOpenSci packages via the Codemeta initiative, see https://docs.ropensci.org/codemetar/ for how to include it in your package, after installing the package - should be easy as running codemetar::write_codemeta() in the root of your package.
  • [x] You can add this installation method to your package README install.packages("<package-name>", repos = "https://ropensci.r-universe.dev") thanks to R-universe.

Should you want to acknowledge your reviewers in your package DESCRIPTION, you can do so by making them "rev"-type contributors in the Authors@R field (with their consent).

Welcome aboard! We'd love to host a post about your package - either a short introduction to it with an example for a technical audience or a longer post with some narrative about its development or something you learned, and an example of its use for a broader readership. If you are interested, consult the blog guide, and tag @ropensci/blog-editors in your reply. They will get in touch about timing and can answer any questions.

We maintain an online book with our best practice and tips, this chapter starts the 3d section that's about guidance for after onboarding (with advice on releases, package marketing, GitHub grooming); the guide also feature CRAN gotchas. Please tell us what could be improved.

Last but not least, you can volunteer as a reviewer via filling a short form.

I completed all tasks. I will think about the post. Probably in a few weeks. I also volunteered as a reviewer, although I have a lot to learn.

yabellini commented 1 year ago

Hi, @jospueyo (rOpenSci Community Manager here). If you want to, I can invite you to our Slack workspace. I will need your email. You can send it to yabellini@ropensci.org.