For Reviewers

Reviewers should refer to the Mozilla reviewing guide for general principles of review. This post is also useful.

We encourage you to ask questions and provide feedback on the review process on our forum.

First time reviewers may find it helpful to read some previous reviews. Here are reviews of rusda, textreuse, and Ropenaq.

General Review criteria

• Does the code comply with general principles in the Mozilla reviewing guide?
• Does the package comply with the ROpenSci packaging guide?
• Are there improvements that could be made to the code style?
• Is there code duplication in the package that should be reduced?
• Are there user interface improvements that could be made?
• Are there performance improvements that could be made?
• Is the documentation (installation instructions/vignettes/examples/demos) clear and sufficient?

Also ensure that

• tests pass for you locally.
• vignettes, README, and documentation examples run without issues.
• and last but not least, please be respectful and kind to the authors in your reviews.

Submitting the review

• Please strive to complete your review within 10 days of accepting a review request. Comments are welcome in the same issue as a package onboarding request. If your review comes as a series of issues (perhaps connected to a milestone), please submit those directly to the authors' repository and make a note in the review issue. We hope that package reviews will work as an ongoing conversation with the authors as opposed to a single round of reviews typical of manuscripts.