Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

language
Pubblicato in rOpenSci - open tools for open science
Autori Maëlle Salmon, Noam Ross

Our onboarding process, thatensures that packages contributed by the community undergo atransparent, constructive, non adversarial and open review process,involves a lot of work from many actors: authors, reviewers and editors;but how much work ? Managing the effort involved in the peer-reviewprocess is a major part of ensuring its sustainability and quality.

Pubblicato in rOpenSci - open tools for open science
Autori Karthik Ram, Noam Ross, Scott Chamberlain, Maëlle Salmon

rOpenSci’s package review system (akaonboarding) is one of our keyactivities to improve quality and sustainability of scientific Rpackages. Theeditorial team are constantly working towards improving the experiencefor both authors and reviewers. After our first year, we surveyedauthors andreviewers whoparticipated in our onboarding process to help us better understandwhat’s working well and where there is room for improvement.

Pubblicato in rOpenSci - open tools for open science
Autore Miles McBain

If you read my reflection #1 on rOpenSci Onboarding, then you know I see value in the Onboarding process. A LOT of value even. This post is about where that value lies. This question has important corollaries which I will explore here based on my experience as a reviewer of bowerbird: How is a package peer reviewer’s time best spent? When is the best time in a software package’s life cycle to undertake peer review?

Pubblicato in rOpenSci - open tools for open science
Autore Charles T. Gray

To give you an idea of where I am in my R developer germination, I’d just started reading about testing when I received an email from @rOpenSci inviting me to review the weathercan package. Many of us in the R community feel like imposters when it comes to software development. In fact, as a statistician, it was a surprise to me when I was recently called a developer.

Pubblicato in rOpenSci - open tools for open science
Autore Verena Haunschmid

It all started January 26 th this year when I signed up to volunteer asa reviewer for R packages submitted to rOpenSci. My main motivation forwanting to volunteer was to learn something new and tocontribute to the R open source community. If you are wondering why thepeople behind rOpenSci are doing this, you can read How rOpenSci uses Code Review to Promote Reproducible Science.

Pubblicato in rOpenSci - open tools for open science
Autore Mara Averick

Contributing to an open-source community without contributing code is an oft-vaunted idea that can seem nebulous. Luckily, putting vague ideas into action is one of the strengths of the rOpenSci Community, and their package onboarding system offers a chance to do just that.