[REVIEW]: codemetar: Generate CodeMeta Metadata for R Packages

[whedon]

Submitting author: @cboettig (Carl Boettiger)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci/codemetar
Version: v0.1.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1048320

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/b16b968425f513da31632b0edd8ff0c5"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/b16b968425f513da31632b0edd8ff0c5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/b16b968425f513da31632b0edd8ff0c5/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/b16b968425f513da31632b0edd8ff0c5)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer questions

@arfon, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below (please make sure you're logged in to GitHub). The reviewer guidelines are available here: http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.1.1)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@cboettig) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS. @arfon it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

[arfon]

Accepting because of onboarding into rOpenSci here: ropensci/software-review#130

[arfon]

@cboettig - could you please merge this PR ropensci/codemetar#39 and once you've made those changes could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[cboettig]

@arfon Thanks, merged an paper.bib added for the links. Just lemme know if that all looks good and I'll create the release to get the new DOI.

[cboettig]

@arfon Okay, release made, DOI is: 10.5281/zenodo.1048320

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1048320 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1048320 is the archive.

[arfon]

@cboettig - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00454 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

[arfon]

Also, @cboettig - please merge this too when you get a chance ropensci/codemetar#40

[cboettig]

ok, merged, thanks!