Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles in R

[whedon]

Submitting author: @juliasilge (Julia Silge)
Repository: https://github.com/juliasilge/tidytext
Version: v0.1.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @rmflight
Archive: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.56714

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/89fd1099620268fe0342ffdcdf66776f"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/89fd1099620268fe0342ffdcdf66776f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/89fd1099620268fe0342ffdcdf66776f/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/89fd1099620268fe0342ffdcdf66776f)

Reviewer questions

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

  General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?

• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.1.1)?

  Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?

• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?

• [x] Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

  Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?

• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g. API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

Paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00037.pdf

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

[arfon]

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

[rmflight]

:hand: I am reviewing this

Robert

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016, 11:46 PM Arfon Smith [email protected] wrote:

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers
https://github.com/orgs/openjournals/teams/joss-reviewers - would
anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this
thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate
effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

_Reviewer instructions_

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the
  reviewer guidelines here
  http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/37#issuecomment-231569067,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ABcI-sXux4l5ob24E5IVtyz1USGAYOc3ks5qUGsCgaJpZM4JIwRk
.

[juliasilge]

I will mention @dgrtwo here so he can follow along as well.

[rmflight]

Regarding LICENSE, the LICENSE is the standard CRAN implementation of the MIT LICENSE, which while not exactly standard for OSS, is the standard for CRAN. Therefore I am checking it off.

[rmflight]

Below is my review, which is basically copy pasting the above checklist, with some commentary interspersed. All checked off, I recommend to publish as-is.

@juliasilge and @dgrtwo: one of the vignettes installing from CRAN did not have the correct title, but I see in the github repo it has been corrected, so no issues. That was the only beef I had.

Reviewer questions

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?

Regarding LICENSE, the LICENSE is the standard CRAN implementation of the MIT LICENSE, which while not exactly standard for OSS, is the standard for CRAN. Therefore I am checking it off.

• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.1.1)?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.

dependencies are handled by the R package installation

• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

The README provides well worked examples showing how the software works, on a real dataset

Various functions have examples, and also included are 4 vignettes (R long-form documentation) that also demonstrate various analyses.

• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g. API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

Paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00037.pdf

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

Issues with Submission

The CRAN installed version does not have the correct title for one of the vignettes, but I would think that it will propagate soon.

Recommendation

Publish as-is

[juliasilge]

Regarding the package's LICENSE, I did try submitting to CRAN with the contents of the whole MIT license in the LICENSE file, as discussed in the author guidelines, but the CRAN administrators did not go for it.

[rmflight]

Right, and I figured that was an issue. That is why I just checked it anyway, because you followed the CRAN guidelines, which is where the package is "published" for ease of installation purposes.

[arfon]

Thanks for the rapid review @rmflight!

@juliasilge - the final thing here is to make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other similar service and update this thread with the archive DOI. I can then move forward with accepting this submission :grin:

[juliasilge]

I turned on Zenodo before our last, most recent release so there is an archive of v0.1.1, the current version and what is on CRAN right now:

Let me know if anything needs to be changed about that, or if I need to make another release for the JOSS submission specifically or anything like that.

[arfon]

@juliasilge - this is now accepted into JOSS. Your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00037 🎉 🚀 💥