[REVIEW]: ggparliament: A ggplot2 extension for parliament plots in R

[whedon]

Submitting author: @zmeers (Zoe Meers)
Repository: https://github.com/RobWHickman/ggparliament/
Version: v.2.1.0
Editor: @cMadan
Reviewer: @andrewheiss
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2650709

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e90b0874dfb70891d3c2b2a781993ba9"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e90b0874dfb70891d3c2b2a781993ba9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e90b0874dfb70891d3c2b2a781993ba9/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e90b0874dfb70891d3c2b2a781993ba9)

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) 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

@andrewheiss, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @cMadan know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @andrewheiss

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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 repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: v.2.1.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@zmeers) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @andrewheiss it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[cMadan]

@andrewheiss, let me know if you have any questions in getting started with the review!

[cMadan]

@andrewheiss, do you know when you'll be able to begin the review? Thanks!

[andrewheiss]

Sorry for the delay! Here's my review:

---

ggparliament is a fantastic new package that extends ggplot2 with custom geometries for political data. It includes a dataset of a handful of parliamentary elections and provides an easy-to-use function for creating your own legislative data. The geom_*() and theme_ggparliament() functions it provides are well documented and easy to follow, and the package's documentation in general is well done. I only came across a few issues, noted below.

Documentation

The README runs without any problems and is easy to follow.

It might be helpful to include documentation (perhaps in the README) about what is included in the sample data. This could be as simple as adding a chunk like this to the README:

election_data %>% 
  distinct(year, country)

# or

election_data %>% 
  distinct(year, country, house)

The vignettes are fantastically written, are easy to follow, and they all run correctly. They should maybe be included in a list in the README so that people who come across the package through GitHub know that they exist. (Though GitHub doesn't render R Markdown nicely, unfortunately; but if the documentation is ever published online through pkgdown or something similar, users would be able to get to the vignettes more easily)

In the facet_parliament_5.Rmd vignette, there's a warning caused by line 97 because of a (vestigial?) type = "horseshoe" in ggplot(aes(...)). The parliament_data() function seems to take care of chart types now, so the type aesthetic doesn't do anything in ggplot() anymore. Removing it from ggplot() fixes the warning.

Testing

There are two tests related to the structure of data created with parliament_data() and they pass. Adding other tests would be difficult, since they deal with visual output. ggplot2 includes detailed tests of its figures by delving into the resulting grid objects, but that's probably not necessary here.

Contributions

It might be helpful to have some community guidelines in the package too, such as a CONTRIBUTING.md file (perhaps modeled after something like this or this) and a CONDUCT.md file (like this or this)

Creating an RStudio project .Rproj file could be helpful for encouraging package contributions, since it would enable RStudio's package building interface.

DOIs

paper/paper.bib file should include DOIs where possible—right now, none of the entries have a DOI

---

That's all I have—I'm excited for this package!

[cMadan]

@andrewheiss, thank you for the well-written and comprehensive review, I really appreciate it!

@zmeers, let me know when you've had a chance to incorporate these suggestions and the review will continue from there :).

[zmeers]

@andrewheiss, thank you!

@cMadan, I have updated the README file, removed the error from one of the vignettes, and have added a CONTRIBUTING.md file. I have also included DOIs where possible in the bibliography. Thanks.

[cMadan]

@zmeers, everything looks good to me! Can you create a Github release corresponding to the current repo and tell me the new version number that now incorporates the recent changes? You also need to deposit the code somewhere archival (e.g., Zenodo or figshare) and tell me the DOI? Thanks!

[zmeers]

@cmaden, Sure, it's all done. The updated version of the R package is v.2.1.0 in the dev branch. The DOI for Zenodo is 10.5281/zenodo.2650709. Thanks!

[cMadan]

@whedon set v.2.1.0 as version

[whedon]

OK. v.2.1.0 is the version.

[cMadan]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2650709 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2650709 is the archive.

[cMadan]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#643

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#643, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[cMadan]

@openjournals/joss-eics, I think we're all set to accept here!

[danielskatz]

@zmeers - please add DOIs for references that have them, such as the journal papers. See the example files if needed

[danielskatz]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[danielskatz]

👋 @arfon - any idea what's going on? Either check references isn't completing, or it's very slow. Also note that it didn't complete when accept was run.

[arfon]

👋 @arfon - any idea what's going on? Either check references isn't completing, or it's very slow. Also note that it didn't complete when accept was run.

I'm guessing that this line might be causing failures: https://github.com/RobWHickman/ggparliament/blob/master/paper/paper.bib#L46 @zmeers - any chance you could take a look at cleaning up this entry?

[zmeers]

Hey @arfon, I believe all of the issues have been fixed in the dev branch. I've added DOIs for all articles or entries that have DOI as well. Unfortunately, a few entries do not have DOIs. You will need to compile the paper from the dev branch though, I hope that's not a problem!

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[danielskatz]

@zmeers - is there a reason you can't put these changes in the master branch?

[whedon]

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#644

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#644, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[arfon]

☝️@whedon needs these changes to be in master before we can accept.

[zmeers]

@arfon, @danielskatz, it's now in the master branch! Sorry for any confusion.

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#645

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#645, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#646

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#646, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[danielskatz]

Thanks to @andrewheiss for reviewing and @cMadan for editing!

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.01313 joss-papers#647
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01313
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01313/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01313)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01313">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01313/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01313/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01313

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss

[whedon]

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v042.i08 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v045.i07 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None