-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 104
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
roadoi #115
Comments
thx for your submission @njahn82 editor checks coming soon |
Editor checks:
Editor commentsCurrently seeking reviewers. It's a good fit and not overlapping.
It is good practice to
✖ write unit tests for all functions, and all package code in general. 81% of code lines are covered by test cases.
R/oadoi_fetch.r:126:NA
R/oadoi_fetch.r:127:NA
R/oadoi_fetch.r:128:NA
R/oadoi_fetch.r:129:NA
R/oadoi_fetch.r:130:NA
... and 4 more lines
✖ avoid long code lines, it is bad for readability. Also, many people prefer editor windows that are about 80 characters wide. Try make your
lines shorter than 80 characters
R/oadoiAddins.R:24:1 Reviewers: @rossmounce @tts |
Thanks for your suggestions! Email validation is now implemented and the long line is wrapped for better code readability. |
cool, thx |
Reviewers assigned! Big thx to @rossmounce @tts - due date above |
Package Review
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Functionality
Final approval (post-review)
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 5 General CommentsThis is a compact and useful package. For me personally timing was perfect because I had plans to add links to open access fulltext to my latest altmetrics Shiny app aaltovirta. Now links are in place, thanks to your work, @njahn82! Although I do not really belong to the RStudio addin focus group, I can imagine that there are many people who welcome this functionality too. Tests
The RStudio addin works as expected. Documentation
|
thanks for your review @tts ! |
@rossmounce just a friendly note that your review is due next week, thx 😸 |
@sckott thanks for the heads up. I've started to look into the package but I'll probably need a few more days (perhaps?). |
Okay, thanks @rossmounce |
Package Review
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Functionality
Final approval (post-review)
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 4 hours Review CommentsGeneral CommentsThis is an excellent wrapper for the R universe, for an excellent API and an excellent set of data resources beneath it all. It's really impressive to see that with tools like this, open access is really starting to come together and be more of a seamless and universal user-experience. As a new OA grants manager, I'm hugely interested in tools that'll make my life easier/quicker/more accurate when attempting to evaluate the open access compliance of our grantees work. I will be sure to use this package in my compliance workflow. Furthermore, I might discuss this with other open access administrators on the next open research funders group (ORFG) call. There are a lot of smaller nonprofits and charities out there that will need a free, open-source software solution to help them with compliance checking of outputs so I'm really glad this package exists. Once I get to use this package more, I'm sure I'll have more comments/issues but for the moment I just want to get this review done so it isn't a blocker. Testsdevtools::check() and devtools::test() ran without errors on Ubuntu 16.04.2 LTS, R 3.2.5. When I get permission to install Rstudio on my 'work' machine, I will let you how the tests run under Win10. I did not try the RStudio addin. DocumentationIn Installation via devtools & github was smooth, but I ran into a small problem when trying to install via CRAN which I reported as an issue: ropensci/roadoi#10 Perhaps there should be a dependencies/pre-requisites section in the README so that new users might be made more aware of what they need before attempting to install I was intrigued by what "blue OA" was, and I still have no concrete idea of what it is. I reported this as an issue and am waiting to hear back from Impactstory about it: ropensci/roadoi#11 |
thanks for your @rossmounce ! @njahn82 continue discussion here - can also ping editors with any questions |
Thank you @tts @rossmounce for your very kind and helpful reviews. I will post my response within the next two weeks |
I have now addressed the reviewer concerns, thanks again to @tts and @rossmounce for taking the time to review the package and for your very helpful suggestions. I am so glad to read that you not only see potential use of this package for your work, but that you have already used it. All changes made to the source code can be found here: @tts comments and suggestions:
Fixed.
Fixed.
Added. I also added a comment that, according to the API documentation, return fields are not fixed and some of them may be added or removed by oaDOI
Agreed. I removed the numbering in the table.
Fixed.
Fixed. @rossmounce comments and suggestions:
Fixed
Thank you for making me aware of this dependency. I now added the required version of the
Agreed. The term Because of your valuable input, I would like to add you as contributors to the |
@njahn82 re: adding contributors, we have a little experiment on that front. So as not to clutter up this review thread, can you take a look at ropensci/software-review-meta#1 ? |
I'm ok with that. Thanks for asking @njahn82 |
I'd be delighted to be listed as a contributor. Thanks @njahn82 |
Thanks for making changes @njahn82 @tts and @rossmounce - Are you happy with the changes/fixes? Any other concerns/thoughts you have? |
Quite happy with fixes from my part. One thing I didn't check earlier was the behaviour of the
From my current (default) addins, Add Crossref Citations wraps |
Very helpful @tts, I fixed the bug as suggested. |
anything else @rossmounce ? |
Nope. Happy with the changes/fixes @sckott |
Approved! thank for your submission @njahn82 !
|
Great, thank you very much for accepting this package. I am very grateful about the reviews, which were very helpful to improve this package! I transferred the repo as described. After adding the "peer-review" badge, I get the following warning when calling
Can you help @sckott ? |
My fault, I was running pandoc 1.18, which caused this warning. Upgrading to the newest pandoc release helps. |
Sounds good. Will prepare a draft and will send it to you by mail within the next two weeks. |
Is on CRAN now! |
thanks! |
Summary
roadoi interacts with the oaDOI API, a simple web interface that links Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and open access full-texts disseminated by both open access journals and repositories.
https://github.com/njahn82/roadoi
data retrieval
This package aims at academics who want to find openly available full-texts within R. More specifically, roadoi can be beneficial for text-mining because it retrieves links to full-texts, as well as for those studying scholarly communication. This package is also of practical use for scholarly communication librarians and analysts.
To my knowledge, there aren't any other R packages on CRAN wrapping the oaDOI-API. However, some R packages allow for searching and retrieving scholarly publications. One example, which is maintained by rOpenSci, is
fulltext
, a wrapper for searching freely available full-texts across many open access sources.Requirements
Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
includes documentation with examples for all functions.
contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
has a test suite.
has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage, using
services such as Travis CI, Coeveralls and/or CodeCov.
I agree to abide by ROpenSci's Code of Conduct during
the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.
Publication options
paper.md
with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/
.Detail
Does
R CMD check
(ordevtools::check()
) succeed? Paste and describe any errors or warnings:Does the package conform to rOpenSci packaging guidelines? Please describe any exceptions:
Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under and why:
I think this package falls best under the data retrieval category, because it supports the discovery of openly available scholarly publications. The oaDOI service itself claims to index more than 90 million articles covering sources like Crossref, a DOI minting agency, or the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE).
If this is a resubmission following rejection, please explain the change in circumstances:
If possible, please provide recommendations of reviewers - those with experience with similar packages and/or likely users of your package - and their GitHub user names:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: