[REVIEW]: dtrackr: An R package for tracking the provenance of data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @robchallen (Robert Challen)
Repository: https://github.com/terminological/dtrackr
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 0.2.5-joss
Editor: @ajstewartlang
Reviewers: @debruine, @craig-willis
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7433514

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47d093cc95dae17d546046bc5ac87475"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47d093cc95dae17d546046bc5ac87475/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47d093cc95dae17d546046bc5ac87475/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/47d093cc95dae17d546046bc5ac87475)

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) by leaving comments 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 instructions & questions

@debruine & @craig-willis, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @ajstewartlang know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @craig-willis

📝 Checklist for @debruine

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.15 s (974.5 files/s, 210098.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML                           104           5131           1342          18366
R                               13            348           1014           1416
SVG                              2              0              1            956
JavaScript                       6            109             62            442
CSS                              4             99             49            431
Rmd                              5            209            259            333
TeX                              2             34              0            240
Markdown                         5             79              0            237
YAML                             4             17             10             78
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           145           6026           2737          22499
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 841

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1136/bmj.c332 is OK
- 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001711 is OK
- 10.5121/IJDMS.2011.3207 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 is OK
- 10.7326/M18-1376 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1136/bmj.n579 is OK
- 10.2139/ssrn.4087373 is OK
- 10.1002/1097-024X(200009)30:11<1203::AID-SPE338>3.0.CO;2-N is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[craig-willis]

Review checklist for @craig-willis

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/terminological/dtrackr?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@robchallen) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[robchallen]

I just wanted to mention that in the branch here under review, the README.md instructions say that "dtrackr" is not yet on CRAN.

This is not correct and the version in the joss review branch (release-0.2.4) of dtrackr is now on CRAN and can be installed with a install.packages("dtrackr") command.

I'm holding back on updating the documentation until I get comments back from you guys. Then I'll make any outstanding fixes update the documentation and push a 0.2.5 release through the CRAN submission process (with the updated installation instructions showing it is on CRAN).

I've just made the exact same mistake on another package I'm submitting to CRAN :-)