Thank you for considering submitting your package to the rOpenSci suite. All our packages go through a process of open peer review to ensure a consistent level of quality for our users. This process also allows us to ensure that your package meets our guidelines and provides opportunity for discussion where exceptions are requested.
Why submit your package to rOpenSci?
- First, and foremost, we hope you submit your package for review because you value the feedback. We aim to provide useful feedback to package authors and for our review process to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality.
- Once aboard, your package will continue to receive support from rOpenSci members. You’ll retain ownership and control of of your package, but we can help with ongoing maintenance issues such as those associated with updates to R and dependencies and CRAN policies.
- rOpenSci will promote your package through our web page, blog, and social media. Packages in our suite are also distributed via our drat repository and Docker images, and listed in our task views.
- rOpenSci packages can be cross-listed with other repositories such as CRAN and BioConductor.
- rOpenSci packages that contain a short accompanying paper can, after review, be automatically submitted to the Journal of Open-Source Software for fast-tracked publication.
Why review packages for rOpenSci?
- As in any peer-review process, we hope you choose to review to give back to the rOpenSci and scientific communities. Our mission to expand access to scientific data and promote a culture of reproducible research is only possible through the volunteer efforts of community members like you.
- Review is a two-way conversation. By reviewing packages, you’ll have the chance to continue to learn development practices from authors and other reviewers.
- The open nature of our review process allows you to network and meet colleagues and collaborators through the review process. Our community is friendly and filled with supportive members expert in R development and many other areas of science and scientific computing.
- To volunteer to be one of our reviewers, just click here to fill out a short form providing your contact information and areas or expertise. We are always looking for more reviewers with both general package-writing experience and domain expertise in the fields packages are used for.
How to submit your package for review
- Consult our policies see if your package meets our criteria for fitting into our suite and not overlapping with other packages.
- If you are unsure whether a package meets our criteria, feel free to open an issue as a pre-submission inquiry to ask if the package is appropriate.
- Follow our packaging style guide to ensure your package meets our style and quality criteria.
- If you would like your package also submitted to Journal of Open-Source Software (JOSS), it should include a
paper.md file describing the package. More detail on JOSS’s requirements can be found at their website.
- If you choose this option you should not submit your package to JOSS separately. It will evaluated by JOSS based on the rOpenSci review.
- Next, open a new issue in this repository and fill out the template.
- An editor will review your submission within 5 business days and respond with next steps. The editor may assign the package to reviewers, request that the package be updated to meet minimal criteria before review, or reject the package due to lack of fit or overlap.
- If your package meets minimal criteria, the editor will assign 1-3 reviewers. They will be asked to provide reviews as comments on your issue within 3 weeks.
- We ask that you respond to reviewers’ comments within 2 weeks of the last-submitted review, but you may make updates to your package or respond at any time. We encourage ongoing conversations between authors and reviewers. See the reviewing guide for more details.
- Once your package is approved, we will provide further instructions on transferring your repository to the rOpenSci repository.
Our code of conduct is mandatory for everyone involved in our review process.
Our review process is always in development, and we encourage feedback and discussion on how to improve the process on our forum.
Useful documents in this repository
Editors and reviewers
rOpenSci’s onboarding process is run by:
We are grateful to the following individuals who have offered up their time and expertise to review packages submitted to rOpenSci.
Adam Sparks · Alicia Schep · Alison Appling · Alison Boyer · Amelia McNamara · Andee Kaplan · Andrew MacDonald · Andy Teucher · Anna Krystalli · Auriel Fournier · Bea Hernandez · Ben Bond-Lamberty · Bob Rudis · Brooke Anderson · Carl Boettiger · Carl Ganz · Claudia Vitolo · Corinna Gries · David Gohel · David Winter · Dean Attali · Dillon Niederhut · Edzer Pebesma · Elaine McVey · Emily Robinson · Erin LeDell · Francois Michonneau · Frans van Dunné · Gabe Becker · Gaurav Sood · Hao Zhu · Hazel Kavılı · Ildiko Czeller · Ivan Hanigan · Jason Becker · Jeff Hanson · Jeff Hollister · Jenny Bryan · Jeroen Ooms · Joseph Stachelek · Julia Gustavsen · Julia Silge · Kara Woo · Kenneth Benoit · Kent Russel · Kevin Ushey · Laura DeCicco · Lauren Yamane · Leah Wasser · Lincoln Mullen · Lucy D’Agostino McGowan · Luke Winslow · Manuel Fernandez · Mara Averick · Marcus Beck · Mark Edmondson · mark padgham · Matt Mulvahill · Michael Koontz · Michael Sumner · Mike Smith · Miles McBain · Najko Jahn · Naupaka Zimmerman · Neal Richardson · Nistara Randhawa · Oliver Keyes · Paul Oldham · Peter Hickey · Rafael Pilliard Hellwig · Remko Duursma · Rich FitzJohn · Robert Flight · Robin Lovelace · Ross Mounce · Sean Hughes · Stefan Widgren · Stephanie Locke · Taras Zakharko · Taylor Arnold · Ted Hart · Ted Underwood · Thomas Leeper · Tiffany Timbers · Toph Allen · Tristan Mahr · Tuija Sonkkila · Verena Haunschmid · W Kyle Hamilton