[REVIEW]: quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data

[whedon]

Submitting author: @kbenoit (Kenneth Benoit)
Repository: https://github.com/quanteda/quanteda
Version: v1.3
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @lmullen, @borishejblum, @alexgarciac
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1447219

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/40b988ba4827f8fdc07a29351c2f74b8"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/40b988ba4827f8fdc07a29351c2f74b8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/40b988ba4827f8fdc07a29351c2f74b8/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/40b988ba4827f8fdc07a29351c2f74b8)

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

@lmullen & @borishejblum & @alexgarciac, 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 @arfon know.

Review checklist for @lmullen

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: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kenbenoit) 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)?

Review checklist for @borishejblum

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: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kenbenoit) 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)?

Review checklist for @alexgarciac

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: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kenbenoit) 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. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @lmullen, 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 📄 <--

[arfon]

@lmullen & @alexgarciac - please remember to review this package when you get a chance.

[borishejblum]

My comments are here quanteda/quanteda#1393

[kbenoit]

Just to flag this for the reviewers, in case it makes a difference: Since submission, we have updated the CRAN version to 1.3.4. Looking forward to your reviews.

[arfon]

@lmullen @alexgarciac - do you think you could both complete your reviews this week?

[lmullen]

Will do my best.

…

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Arfon Smith ***@***.***> wrote: @lmullen <https://github.com/lmullen> @alexgarciac <https://github.com/alexgarciac> - do you think you could both complete your reviews this week? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#774 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALNeM9XT9UUA_s1F_uBqrfosKvBQKKCks5uJOxTgaJpZM4Uis2_> .

-- Lincoln Mullen Assistant Professor, Department of History & Art History George Mason University

[kbenoit]

Looking forward to your comments @lmullen @alexgarciac. 😄

[lmullen]

@arfon I am working on this review. Technically I have a conflict of interest according the the JOSS policies, since Ken and I published a JOSS paper together earlier this year. I had assumed that JOSS already knew about this, but I guess not. I do not think this COI should preclude me from submitting my review, but that's your editorial call. What do you think?

[arfon]

@arfon I am working on this review. Technically I have a conflict of interest according the the JOSS policies, since Ken and I published a JOSS paper together earlier this year. I had assumed that JOSS already knew about this, but I guess not. I do not think this COI should preclude me from submitting my review, but that's your editorial call. What do you think?

Thanks for disclosing this @lmullen. As we have multiple reviewers here I'm happy for you to proceed.

[arfon]

👋 @alexgarciac @lmullen - when do you think you might be able to complete your review by?