openalexR: an R package to interface with the OpenAlex API #560

trangdata · 2022-11-08T14:10:03Z

Date accepted: 2023-02-23

Submitting Author Name: Trang Le
Submitting Author Github Handle: @trangdata
Other Package Authors Github handles: (comma separated, delete if none) @massimoaria
Repository: https://github.com/massimoaria/openalexR
Version submitted: 1.0.2
Submission type: Standard
Editor: @ldecicco-USGS
Reviewers: @BriannaLind, @pachadotdev

Due date for @BriannaLind: 2022-12-22

Due date for
Due date for @pachadotdev: 2023-01-24
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Language: en

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Type: Package
Package: openalexR
Title: Getting Bibliographic Records from 'OpenAlex' Database Using 'DSL'
    API
Version: 1.0.2
Authors@R: c(
    person(given = "Massimo",
           family = "Aria",
           role = c("aut", "cre", "cph"),
           email = "aria@unina.it",
           comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-8517-9411")),
    person(given = "Corrado",
           family = "Cuccurullo",
           role = c("ctb"),
           email = "cuccurullocorrado@gmail.com",
           comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-7401-8575")),       
    person(given = "Trang",
           family = "Le",
           role = "aut",
           email = "grixor@gmail.com",
           comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0003-3737-6565"))
    )
Description: A set of tools to extract bibliographic content from
    'OpenAlex' database using API <https://docs.openalex.org/api/>.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
URL: https://github.com/massimoaria/openalexR,
    https://massimoaria.github.io/openalexR/
BugReports: https://github.com/massimoaria/openalexR/issues
Imports: 
    curl,
    httr,
    jsonlite,
    progress,
    tibble
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0),
    dplyr,
    knitr,
    rmarkdown,
    tidyr,
    purrr,
    ggplot2,
    covr
VignetteBuilder: 
    knitr
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
RoxygenNote: 7.2.1
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Depends: 
    R (>= 2.10)

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):
- data retrieval
- data extraction
- data munging
- data deposition
- data validation and testing
- workflow automation
- version control
- citation management and bibliometrics
- scientific software wrappers
- field and lab reproducibility tools
- database software bindings
- geospatial data
- text analysis
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences): The package interacts with the OpenAlex API. Similar packages in the same category are rcrossref and rotl.
Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
Anyone who wants to work in R to interact with the OpenAlex API to acquire information on publications, authors, etc., including researchers in the field of bibliometrics, text mining, etc. We include several example analyses in our README.
Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?
Please see the detailed answer here with a detailed table of comparison and examples of code differences.
(If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?
Yes.
If you made a pre-submission inquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.
Presubmission inquiry - openalexR: interacts with OpenAlex API #557
Explain reasons for any pkgcheck items which your package is unable to pass.
N/A. Passed all checks.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

I have read the rOpenSci packaging guide.
I have read the author guide and I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years or to find a replacement.

This package:

does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
includes documentation with examples for all functions, created with roxygen2.
contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
has a test suite.
has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage.

Publication options

Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?
Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal.
The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words.
You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see MEE's Policy on Publishing Code)
(Scope: Do consider MEE's Aims and Scope for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.)
(Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.)
(Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution)

Code of conduct

I agree to abide by rOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

ropensci-review-bot · 2022-11-08T14:10:05Z

Thanks for submitting to rOpenSci, our editors and @ropensci-review-bot will reply soon. Type @ropensci-review-bot help for help.

ropensci-review-bot · 2022-11-08T14:10:13Z

🚀

Editor check started

👋

ropensci-review-bot · 2022-11-08T14:15:13Z

Checks for openalexR (v1.0.2)

git hash: c0d32fea

✔️ Package is already on CRAN.
✔️ has a 'codemeta.json' file.
✔️ has a 'contributing' file.
✔️ uses 'roxygen2'.
✔️ 'DESCRIPTION' has a URL field.
✔️ 'DESCRIPTION' has a BugReports field.
✔️ Package has at least one HTML vignette
✔️ All functions have examples.
✔️ Package has continuous integration checks.
✔️ Package coverage is 92.4%.
✔️ R CMD check found no errors.
✔️ R CMD check found no warnings.

Package License: MIT + file LICENSE

1. Package Dependencies

Details of Package Dependency Usage (click to open)

The table below tallies all function calls to all packages ('ncalls'), both internal (r-base + recommended, along with the package itself), and external (imported and suggested packages). 'NA' values indicate packages to which no identified calls to R functions could be found. Note that these results are generated by an automated code-tagging system which may not be entirely accurate.

type	package	ncalls
internal	base	227
internal	openalexR	67
internal	utils	16
internal	stats	12
internal	graphics	2
internal	methods	2
imports	httr	5
imports	jsonlite	2
imports	curl	NA
imports	progress	NA
imports	tibble	NA
suggests	testthat	NA
suggests	dplyr	NA
suggests	knitr	NA
suggests	rmarkdown	NA
suggests	tidyr	NA
suggests	purrr	NA
suggests	ggplot2	NA
suggests	covr	NA
linking_to	NA	NA

Click below for tallies of functions used in each package. Locations of each call within this package may be generated locally by running 's <- pkgstats::pkgstats(<path/to/repo>)', and examining the 'external_calls' table.

base

list (62), c (23), lapply (16), do.call (15), length (14), if (11), for (7), unlist (7), vector (6), mode (5), paste (5), is.null (4), lengths (4), names (3), rbind.data.frame (3), by (2), duplicated (2), max (2), min (2), nrow (2), rbind (2), rep (2), search (2), sort (2), switch (2), unique (2), url (2), which (2), as.character (1), ceiling (1), environment (1), format (1), grepl (1), intersect (1), is.na (1), logical (1), mapply (1), merge (1), paste0 (1), seq_along (1), seq.int (1), strsplit (1), tolower (1), vapply (1)

openalexR

oa_fetch (13), oa_progress (7), au_collapse (5), subs_na (5), empty_list (3), oa_request (3), SR (3), abstract_build (2), api_request (2), append_flt (2), cfg (2), oa_entities (2), simple_rapply (2), asl (1), authors2df (1), concepts2df (1), get_auth_position (1), id_type (1), institutions2df (1), isValidEmail (1), oa_email (1), oa_query (1), oa_random (1), oa_snowball (1), oa2bibliometrix (1), oa2df (1), prepend (1), shorten_oaid (1), shorten_orcid (1)

utils

data (16)

stats

filter (11), setNames (1)

httr

content (2), GET (1), modify_url (1), user_agent (1)

graphics

text (2)

jsonlite

fromJSON (2)

methods

as (2)

NOTE: Some imported packages appear to have no associated function calls; please ensure with author that these 'Imports' are listed appropriately.

2. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has:

code in R (100% in 8 files) and
2 authors
4 vignettes
2 internal data files
5 imported packages
16 exported functions (median 36 lines of code)
54 non-exported functions in R (median 8 lines of code)

Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages
The following terminology is used:

loc = "Lines of Code"
fn = "function"
exp/not_exp = exported / not exported

All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by the checks_to_markdown() function

The final measure (fn_call_network_size) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile.

measure	value	percentile	noteworthy
files_R	8	50.7
files_vignettes	4	95.3
files_tests	8	88.2
loc_R	858	63.8
loc_vignettes	583	81.6
loc_tests	363	68.2
num_vignettes	4	96.6	TRUE
data_size_total	4058	66.2
data_size_median	2029	68.7
n_fns_r	70	66.8
n_fns_r_exported	16	60.6
n_fns_r_not_exported	54	69.6
n_fns_per_file_r	6	73.8
num_params_per_fn	2	11.9
loc_per_fn_r	14	42.4
loc_per_fn_r_exp	36	70.0
loc_per_fn_r_not_exp	8	26.4
rel_whitespace_R	23	70.2
rel_whitespace_vignettes	28	79.4
rel_whitespace_tests	16	59.8
doclines_per_fn_exp	46	58.1
doclines_per_fn_not_exp	0	0.0	TRUE
fn_call_network_size	63	70.9

2a. Network visualisation

Click to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package

3. `goodpractice` and other checks

Details of goodpractice checks (click to open)

3a. Continuous Integration Badges

GitHub Workflow Results

id	name	conclusion	sha	run_number	date
3420154650	pages build and deployment	success	3a012b	38	2022-11-08
3420037823	pkgcheck	success	c0d32f	2	2022-11-08
3420182325	pkgdown	NA	c4e6ce	88	2022-11-08
3420182323	R-CMD-check	NA	c4e6ce	73	2022-11-08
3420182324	test-coverage	NA	c4e6ce	30	2022-11-08

3b. `goodpractice` results

`R CMD check` with rcmdcheck

rcmdcheck found no errors, warnings, or notes

Test coverage with covr

Package coverage: 92.42

Cyclocomplexity with cyclocomp

The following functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15:

function	cyclocomplexity
oa_request	19
works2df	16

Static code analyses with lintr

lintr found the following 74 potential issues:

message	number of times
Avoid library() and require() calls in packages	9
Lines should not be more than 80 characters.	65

Package Versions

package	version
pkgstats	0.1.1.66
pkgcheck	0.1.0.32

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

This package is in top shape and may be passed on to a handling editor

annakrystalli · 2022-11-08T22:23:39Z

Thanks for submitting @trangdata! 🎉

I'm in the process of assigning a handling editor.

In the meantime, it appears there's a minor discrepancy in the version stated in the submission and pasted DESCRIPTION (1.0.1) and the actual current package version (1.0.2). Would you mind correcting and double-checking the pasted DESCRIPTION is up to date?

trangdata · 2022-11-08T22:55:46Z

Thanks so much @annakrystalli! 🌻

it appears there's a minor discrepancy in the version stated in the submission and pasted DESCRIPTION (1.0.1) and the actual current package version (1.0.2).

Ah my bad. I forgot to update the version. Edited now.

annakrystalli · 2022-11-10T19:39:57Z

@ropensci-review-bot assign @ldecicco-USGS as editor

ropensci-review-bot · 2022-11-10T19:40:00Z

Assigned! @ldecicco-USGS is now the editor

ldecicco-USGS · 2022-11-14T17:41:37Z

ldecicco-USGS · 2022-11-14T17:46:17Z

Hi @trangdata ! The package looks great! I'll try to find some editors as soon as possible

trangdata · 2022-11-16T12:11:27Z

Thank you so much @ldecicco-USGS. 🪴 And you mean reviewers right? 😅

ldecicco-USGS · 2022-11-16T12:47:12Z

😆Yup!

ldecicco-USGS · 2022-12-01T13:55:40Z

@ropensci-review-bot assign @BriannaLind as reviewer

ropensci-review-bot · 2022-12-01T13:55:42Z

@BriannaLind added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2022-12-22. Thanks @BriannaLind for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide.

rOpenSci’s community is our best asset. We aim for reviews to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality. Be respectful and kind! See our reviewers guide and code of conduct for more.

ropensci-review-bot · 2022-12-01T13:55:45Z

@BriannaLind: If you haven't done so, please fill this form for us to update our reviewers records.

BriannaLind · 2022-12-21T20:05:47Z

Sorry for the delay team - I am diving into the review, will get back asap

ldecicco-USGS · 2022-12-29T18:18:54Z

It turns out I had assigned the review to a fake account that was impersonating the actual reviewer. I'm verifying he's still interested in reviewing. Sorry for the delay @trangdata !

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-01-03T17:28:16Z

@ropensci-review-bot assign @pachadotdev as reviewer

ropensci-review-bot · 2023-01-03T17:28:19Z

@pachadotdev added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2023-01-24. Thanks @pachadotdev for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide.

rOpenSci’s community is our best asset. We aim for reviews to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality. Be respectful and kind! See our reviewers guide and code of conduct for more.

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-01-20T15:00:54Z

Hi @pachadotdev and @BriannaLind , checking in to see if you could update us on an approximate timeline for when you'll be able to do the review.

trangdata · 2023-01-31T21:14:29Z

I think its totally fine for users to install extra packages separately - I mostly was thinking of a 'new R user' who is going to want to really work through your examples and copy and paste the script ---that it would be nice to have library(XXX) above the code snippet to reduce frustration.

@BriannaLind ah gotcha! That makes sense. I'll keep this in mind when updating the readme.

ll try to have my review done by Thu

@pachadotdev Thank you!!! I'm excited to hear your feedback! 🙌🏽

maurolepore · 2023-02-03T20:03:51Z

Dear all,

My EiC rotation just started and I'm checking the status of open issues. I don't mean to intrude but to save you time. So while I'm here I note the second review might be ready soon.

@pachadotdev, any updates?

pachadotdev · 2023-02-03T21:47:49Z

Dear all,

My EiC rotation just started and I'm checking the status of open issues. I don't mean to intrude but to save you time. So while I'm here I note the second review might be ready soon.

@pachadotdev, any updates?

hi!
I can send it by tonight

pachadotdev · 2023-02-05T23:04:24Z

ready
how do I upload this?

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-02-06T13:22:54Z

Hi @pachadotdev - copy and paste the text in the comments. If there are any formatting issues I can take a look and see how to fix it up.

pachadotdev · 2023-02-06T23:24:47Z

Package Review (1)

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (if you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

A statement of need: clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
Function Documentation: for all exported functions
Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

Functionality

Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 3.5

Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Sorry for the delay! The outputs look strange on Windows, but it works perfect on Ubuntu. After checking, it is because I had older pkgs on Windows.

pachadotdev · 2023-02-06T23:25:52Z

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-02-10T15:43:08Z

@ropensci-review-bot submit review #560 (comment) time 3.5

ropensci-review-bot · 2023-02-10T15:43:10Z

Couldn't find entry for pachadotdev in the reviews log

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-02-10T15:43:57Z

@ropensci-review-bot submit review #560 (comment) time 6

ropensci-review-bot · 2023-02-10T15:43:59Z

Logged review for BriannaLind (hours: 6)

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-02-10T15:46:16Z

Thanks @pachadotdev and @BriannaLind for the reviews!

It seems like you both gave the package a test drive and things are looking pretty good. I don't see any major suggestions that were put forth yet to fix. Is that right? When I first looked at the package via the editor review, I also thought it was in pretty good shape!

If that's correct, @pachadotdev and @BriannaLind , could you use the Approval template and verify:
https://devguide.ropensci.org/approval2template.html

BriannaLind · 2023-02-10T15:55:36Z

Reviewer Response

Final approval (post-review)

The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 6

pachadotdev · 2023-02-11T17:50:50Z

Reviewer Response

Final approval (post-review)

The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 3.5

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-02-23T16:32:12Z

@ropensci-review-bot approve openalexR

ropensci-review-bot · 2023-02-23T16:32:16Z

Approved! Thanks @trangdata for submitting and @BriannaLind, @pachadotdev for your reviews! 😁

To-dos:

Should you want to acknowledge your reviewers in your package DESCRIPTION, you can do so by making them "rev"-type contributors in the Authors@R field (with their consent).

Welcome aboard! We'd love to host a post about your package - either a short introduction to it with an example for a technical audience or a longer post with some narrative about its development or something you learned, and an example of its use for a broader readership. If you are interested, consult the blog guide, and tag @ropensci/blog-editors in your reply. They will get in touch about timing and can answer any questions.

We maintain an online book with our best practice and tips, this chapter starts the 3d section that's about guidance for after onboarding (with advice on releases, package marketing, GitHub grooming); the guide also feature CRAN gotchas. Please tell us what could be improved.

Last but not least, you can volunteer as a reviewer via filling a short form.

ldecicco-USGS · 2023-02-23T16:37:34Z

@trangdata Congratulations on the great package. Sorry the timing went a little longer than usual. The "bot" automatically closes this issue when the package gets approved, but we can still use the issue to communicate (or feel free to re-open it if you have any questions).

Let me know if you have any questions on the instructions above.

Once again, thanks for submitting to rOpenSci and great work! 🎉

trangdata · 2023-02-23T23:14:20Z

@ldecicco-USGS Thank you so much! ❤️ And huge thank you to the reviewers @pachadotdev and @BriannaLind for your valuable feedback! 🌈 Would you both be okay with us listing you as reviewers in our DESCRIPTION file?

On the first TODO: @ldecicco-USGS Could you please add (or ask the bot to add) @massimoaria to ropensci so he could transfer "ownership" of the repository, please? The package currently lives at https://github.com/massimoaria/openalexR. Thank you!

maelle · 2023-02-24T05:30:45Z

I sent an invitation to the organization to @massimoaria. Please ping me when the repo is transferred so that I might give @massimoaria admin access back.

Sorry for the clunkiness, it's only the second time in a short time we encounter this case ropensci-org/buffy#98

massimoaria · 2023-02-24T07:26:06Z

Dear Maelle, I just transferred the openalexR repository to the rOpenSci organization. Thanks a lot Massimo ⁣**************************************************** Dr. Massimo Aria Full Professor in Statistics for Social Sciences PhD in Computational Statistics Bibliometrix R-package creator K-Synth Academic Spin-Off co-founder Department of Economics and Statistics University of Naples Federico II Monte S. Angelo, via Cinthia I-80126 Napoli, Italy Room D-25, Sector D, 2nd Floor, Building 3 ph. +39 081675187 fax +39 081675009 mob. +39 392 1966384 email ***@***.*** https://www.massimoaria.com https://www.bibliometrix.org https://www.k-synth.unina.it https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=Qu66YZQAAAAJ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8517-9411 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/O-7983-2015 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Massimo_Aria ****************************************************

…

Il giorno 24 feb 2023, alle ore 06:30, Maëlle Salmon ***@***.***> ha scritto: I sent an invitation to the organization to @massimoaria <https://github.com/massimoaria>. Please ping me when the repo is transferred so that I might give @massimoaria <https://github.com/massimoaria> admin access back. Sorry for the clunkiness, it's only the second time in a short time we encounter this case ropensci-org/buffy#98 <ropensci-org/buffy#98> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#560 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD2H753KTTIRCVTQW4UFTKDWZBBRDANCNFSM6AAAAAAR2LR6UE>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

maelle · 2023-02-24T12:52:28Z

Awesome, thanks! I've given you admin rights and write access to @trangdata but now that you have admin rights you can increase @trangdata's as needed.

trangdata · 2023-02-24T16:40:27Z

@massimoaria Any chance you could give me admin access so it's easier for me to make changes such as change the repo description url. Thank you! 🌱

massimoaria · 2023-02-24T17:39:32Z

Done!

annakrystalli added the 0/editorial-team-prep label Nov 8, 2022

annakrystalli added package topic:data-retrieval labels Nov 8, 2022

ropensci-review-bot assigned ldecicco-USGS Nov 10, 2022

ropensci-review-bot added 1/editor-checks and removed 0/editorial-team-prep labels Nov 10, 2022

trangdata mentioned this issue Nov 11, 2022

oa2df() fails with Error in l_inst[inst_idx][[1]] : subscript out of bounds ropensci/openalexR#49

Closed

ropensci-review-bot added the 3/reviewer(s)-assigned label Dec 1, 2022

ldecicco-USGS removed the 1/editor-checks label Dec 1, 2022

ropensci deleted a comment from ropensci-review-bot Dec 29, 2022

trangdata mentioned this issue Jan 31, 2023

Update readme to separate core and utility functions ropensci/openalexR#67

Closed

ldecicco-USGS added 4/review(s)-in-awaiting-changes and removed 3/reviewer(s)-assigned labels Feb 10, 2023

ropensci-review-bot added the 6/approved label Feb 23, 2023

ropensci-review-bot closed this as completed Feb 23, 2023

maelle mentioned this issue Feb 24, 2023

How should we handle submissions where the submitter doesn't own the repository? ropensci-org/buffy#98

Open

mpadge removed the 4/review(s)-in-awaiting-changes label Jan 22, 2024

openalexR: an R package to interface with the OpenAlex API #560

openalexR: an R package to interface with the OpenAlex API #560

Comments

trangdata commented Nov 8, 2022 • edited by ropensci-review-bot Loading

Due date for Due date for @pachadotdev: 2023-01-24 Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: en

Scope

Technical checks

Publication options

Code of conduct

ropensci-review-bot commented Nov 8, 2022

ropensci-review-bot commented Nov 8, 2022

ropensci-review-bot commented Nov 8, 2022

Checks for openalexR (v1.0.2)

1. Package Dependencies

2. Statistical Properties

2a. Network visualisation

3. goodpractice and other checks

3a. Continuous Integration Badges

3b. goodpractice results

R CMD check with rcmdcheck

Test coverage with covr

Cyclocomplexity with cyclocomp

Static code analyses with lintr

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

annakrystalli commented Nov 8, 2022

trangdata commented Nov 8, 2022

annakrystalli commented Nov 10, 2022

ropensci-review-bot commented Nov 10, 2022

ldecicco-USGS commented Nov 14, 2022 • edited Loading

Editor checks:

Editor comments

ldecicco-USGS commented Nov 14, 2022

trangdata commented Nov 16, 2022

ldecicco-USGS commented Nov 16, 2022

ldecicco-USGS commented Dec 1, 2022

ropensci-review-bot commented Dec 1, 2022

ropensci-review-bot commented Dec 1, 2022

BriannaLind commented Dec 21, 2022

ldecicco-USGS commented Dec 29, 2022

ldecicco-USGS commented Jan 3, 2023

ropensci-review-bot commented Jan 3, 2023

ldecicco-USGS commented Jan 20, 2023

trangdata commented Jan 31, 2023

maurolepore commented Feb 3, 2023

pachadotdev commented Feb 3, 2023

pachadotdev commented Feb 5, 2023

ldecicco-USGS commented Feb 6, 2023

pachadotdev commented Feb 6, 2023

Package Review (1)

Documentation

Functionality

Review Comments

pachadotdev commented Feb 6, 2023

Package Review

Documentation

Functionality

Review Comments

ldecicco-USGS commented Feb 10, 2023

ropensci-review-bot commented Feb 10, 2023

ldecicco-USGS commented Feb 10, 2023

ropensci-review-bot commented Feb 10, 2023

ldecicco-USGS commented Feb 10, 2023

BriannaLind commented Feb 10, 2023 • edited Loading

Reviewer Response

Final approval (post-review)

pachadotdev commented Feb 11, 2023 • edited Loading

Reviewer Response

Final approval (post-review)

ldecicco-USGS commented Feb 23, 2023

ropensci-review-bot commented Feb 23, 2023

ldecicco-USGS commented Feb 23, 2023

trangdata commented Feb 23, 2023 • edited Loading

maelle commented Feb 24, 2023

massimoaria commented Feb 24, 2023 via email

maelle commented Feb 24, 2023

trangdata commented Feb 24, 2023

massimoaria commented Feb 24, 2023

trangdata commented Nov 8, 2022 •

edited by ropensci-review-bot

Loading

Due date for
Due date for @pachadotdev: 2023-01-24
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Language: en

3. `goodpractice` and other checks

3b. `goodpractice` results

`R CMD check` with rcmdcheck

ldecicco-USGS commented Nov 14, 2022 •

edited

Loading

BriannaLind commented Feb 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pachadotdev commented Feb 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

trangdata commented Feb 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading