[REVIEW]: academictwitteR: an R Package to Access the Twitter Academic Research Product Track V2 API Endpoint

[whedon]

Submitting author: @cjbarrie (Christopher Barrie)
Repository: https://github.com/cjbarrie/academictwitteR
Version: v0.1.1.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @medewitt, @JosiahParry
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4905468

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/36175520fe1399633aee515444e06bba"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/36175520fe1399633aee515444e06bba/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/36175520fe1399633aee515444e06bba/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/36175520fe1399633aee515444e06bba)

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

@medewitt & @JosiahParry, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz 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 ✨

Review checklist for @medewitt

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 repository url?
• 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 (@cjbarrie) 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 and who the target audience is?
• 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?

Review checklist for @JosiahParry

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 repository url?
• 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 (@cjbarrie) 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 and who the target audience is?
• 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?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @medewitt, @JosiahParry it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ 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

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

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.2528481 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4714637 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (587.4 files/s, 52969.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               24            136            648           1340
Markdown                         6            112              0            275
Rmd                              3            171            213            152
TeX                              1              2              0             17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            34            421            861           1784
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '5dc8f2209c9b844fefd33377' was
gathered on 2021/05/10.
No commited files with the specified extensions were found.

[whedon]

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

[danielskatz]

@medewitt and @JosiahParry - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

Please read the first couple of comments in this issue carefully, so that you can accept the invitation from JOSS and be able to check items, and so that you don't get overwhelmed with notifications from other activities in JOSS.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3272 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

[danielskatz]

👋 @medewitt and @JosiahParry - I just wanted to check in and see how things are going with these reviews...

[whedon]

👋 @JosiahParry, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[whedon]

👋 @medewitt, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[JosiahParry]

@danielskatz quick point of clarification (and point me to any documentation, please): must the LICENSE contain the full content of the license? Or is the LICENSE.md containing that information sufficient?

[danielskatz]

I'm not sure it matters if the file is LICENSE or LICENSE.md but having both with different contents seems bad to me in my Python world. I would say that LICENSE in this case should be removed, but CRAN has policies that seem odd to me, specifically see the MIT link in https://cran.r-project.org/web/licenses/

[JosiahParry]

@cjbarrie, you're missing a code of conduct. I'd recommend starting with a template from something like usethis::use_code_of_conduct()

[medewitt]

@danielskatz still working through the review on my end. I have put in two PRs

Update to Cite the JOSS Article for rtweet
Example of Unit Tests/ Continuous Integration Through GH Actions

Additionally, I have an issue on the repository for with recommendation to use the code of conduct:

Establishing Code of Conduct/Contribution Guides

[medewitt]

I'm not sure it matters if the file is LICENSE or LICENSE.md but having both with different contents seems bad to me in my Python world. I would say that LICENSE in this case should be removed, but CRAN has policies that seem odd to me, specifically see the MIT link in https://cran.r-project.org/web/licenses/

I believe CRAN needs the "LICENSE" file and not the markdown version (I think CRAN checks will fail on the licensing information in the DESCRIPTION file if an extension exists)

[karthik]

Yes CRAN does not like the markdown version. If you include it, you should add it to .Rbuildignore so it is not bundled with the built package. For the most up to date information on LICENSE for R packages, see https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#key-files

If you are not sure how to set these up, I would recommend using the usethis package and its relevant functions: https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#more-licenses

[JosiahParry]

It looks like the code of conduct has been added.
The license looks set up accordingly (thanks, @karthik).

Will review further on Monday.

[JosiahParry]

All looks good! No automated tests.

[danielskatz]

The checkbox item says "Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?" So we don't need automated tests, if there is a way to verify the functionality of the software manually. Is there such a way documented?

[medewitt]

Check out cjbarrie/academictwitteR#78 (comment)

Right now, the CRAN checks will do the basic installation checks, but will not check the functionality per se (all of the examples which would be checked by CRAN are wrapped in "dontrun"). As far as manually checking functionality, the authors have done a great job adding an example to each function. A user could manually try to run each example to demonstrate functionality.

[danielskatz]

What else is needed to check off the final box?

[danielskatz]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[danielskatz]

I've proofread the paper, and it looks good

[danielskatz]

@cjbarrie - the next steps are for you to:

• Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
• Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
• Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[cjbarrie]

Thank you very much for this!

• Tag: v0.1.1.1 released as "JOSS Release" here: https://github.com/cjbarrie/academictwitteR/releases/tag/v0.1.1.1
• Archived at Zenodo here: https://zenodo.org/record/4905468
• DOI of archived version: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905468

[danielskatz]

@whedon set v0.1.1.1 as version

[whedon]

OK. v0.1.1.1 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@cjbarrie - Is this ok for you? Or did you want this to be "JOSS Release", which seems a bit unusual to me?

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4905468 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4905468 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

To recommend a paper to be accepted use @whedon recommend-accept

[danielskatz]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.01829 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4714637 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2367

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2367, 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]

Note: After the answer to the version tag question, I'll come back and check this and proceed with the final steps

[cjbarrie]

@cjbarrie - Is this ok for you? Or did you want this to be "JOSS Release", which seems a bit unusual to me?

This is fine, thank you! Apologies for the confusion.

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[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.03272 joss-papers#2368
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272
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...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @cjbarrie (Christopher Barrie) and co-author!!

And thanks to @medewitt and @JosiahParry for their reviewing!

[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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03272/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03272/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03272/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272

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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[cjbarrie]

Fantastic! Thanks so much for all your help with this. I will be letting colleagues know of JOSS. Honestly so impressed with this review process. What a brilliant initiative. I will, of course, be adding my name to the list of potential reviewers. Chris

…

On 7 Jun 2021, at 20:17, whedon ***@***.***> wrote:  🎉🎉🎉 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: [](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272) HTML: <a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272"> <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03272/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" > </a> reStructuredText: .. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03272/status.svg :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03272 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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.