[REVIEW]: cartography: Create and Integrate Maps in your R Workflow

[whedon]

Submitting author: @rCarto (Timothée Giraud)
Repository: https://github.com/Groupe-ElementR/cartography
Version: v1.4.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @jankatins
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.60878

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c2d51fc23efb8e1f87d764da8414923"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c2d51fc23efb8e1f87d764da8414923/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c2d51fc23efb8e1f87d764da8414923/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c2d51fc23efb8e1f87d764da8414923)

Reviewer questions

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

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 (v1.4.0)?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

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

Paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00054.pdf

• 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)?

[arfon]

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

[jankatins]

✋ I am reviewing this

[jankatins]

• Downloaded from the repo via devtools ✔️
• License is GPL (from 2007 -> DESCRIPTION says GPL-3) ✔️
• redid the example in the readme in an jupyter notebook on R 3.3 ✔️ The vignette also worked like a charm ✔️ Unfortunatelly the only EN blogpost in http://rgeomatic.hypotheses.org/842 resulted in some errors (deprecation warnings -> the blogpost seems to require 1.3 but I was on 1.4)
• no performance claims were given, but the run times of the examples were reasonable (compared to cartopy/basemaps in python)
• the paper states what the packages tries to solve ✔️
• the (devtools) installation worked flawless on windows so dependencies are automatically installed ✔️
• the examples solve real world needs ✔️
• checked the API docs and they look great ✔️
• The package is auto checked on travis (Linux) ✔️ (as a windows user I would appreciate appveyor tests as well :-) )
• community guidelines are basically "contribute vie PRs, raise issues or ask questions via issues" -> Minimum is answered ✔️
• paper contains a list of authors with affiliations (and one with an ORCID 👍 ) ✔️
• the references only cite packages or books and an R News item, which seems to have no DOI :-( ✔️

So IMO there is only one question:

• Version on github is 1.4.0 but CRAN is still on 1.3.0 -> what's the problem here? https://github.com/Groupe-ElementR/cartography/releases vs https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cartography/index.html -> probably only the CRAN delay as the github release is only from 9h ago...

Apart from that this looks good to publish!

[arfon]

👍 thanks for the rapid review @JanSchulz. @rCarto - please let me know what's happening with the version numbers/releases.

[rCarto]

Thanks for the review @JanSchulz.

• I have updated the blogpost to reflect the current version usage.
• I have added the appveyor CI (which was surprisingly easy).

@arfon, concerning the version numbers, I was waiting for possible comments or suggestions from JOSS to integrate. Since comments and suggestions do not imply code changes I will upload this release (v1.4.0) to the CRAN today.

[jankatins]

I have updated the blogpost to reflect the current version usage.
I have added the appveyor CI (which was surprisingly easy).

Thank you! 🎉

[Just to make sure: both were just something I observed and not related to the review here. Both could have gone as easily to the upstream repo as a issue -- and probably should have... sorry about that]

[rCarto]

no problem

[rCarto]

cartography v1.4.0 is on CRAN now.

[arfon]

@rCarto - 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.

[rCarto]

Here is the DOI url of the archive: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.60878

[arfon]

Thanks for the rapid review @JanSchulz ⚡

@rCarto your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00054 🚀 🎉 💥

[rCarto]

Many thanks!