Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: countrycode: An R package to convert country names and country codes

[whedon]

Submitting author: @vincentarelbundock (Vincent Arel-Bundock)
Repository: https://github.com/vincentarelbundock/countrycode
Version: 1.00.0
Editor: @leeper
Reviewer: @andybega
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1341914

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d682736e83d4d08993f241085ab6239"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d682736e83d4d08993f241085ab6239/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d682736e83d4d08993f241085ab6239/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/1d682736e83d4d08993f241085ab6239)

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

@andybega, 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 @leeper know.

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

Review checklist for @andybega

Conflict of interest

• [x] 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

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

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 (1.00.0)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@vincentarelbundock) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

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

• [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

• [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)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @andybega it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

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:

1. 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 :page_facing_up: <--

[leeper]

@andybega The review checklist is here - work through and see if anything is missing or could be improved, flag any relevant issues, and ping me when you've completed your review. It sounds like you're already familiar with the package, so I imagine this should be pretty straightforward. Thanks, again!

[andybega]

@leeper I've gone through the checklist and everything looks good. This package has been around for several years and the core functionality works as advertised. There are extensive tests, the documentation and README are good, and there are clear guidelines for potential contributors.

Not sure if the Chinese character issue in the paper is something that should be resolved in whedon first, but otherwise everything else is in order.

[leeper]

Thanks, @andybega! Much appreciate the quick and thorough review. I agree package is very robust.

[leeper]

@vincentarelbundock The review process is now complete. To finalize your submission and accept your paper in JOSS, we need you to deposit a copy of your software repository (including any revisions made during the JOSS review process) with a data-archiving service. To do so:

1. Create a GitHub release of the current version of your software repository
2. Deposit that release with Zenodo, figshare, or a similar DOI issuer.
3. Post a comment here to @leeper with the DOI for the release.

Let me know if you have any questions about the process. I'm happy to wait on this until https://github.com/openjournals/whedon/pull/30 is resolved, or we can proceed with the submission and update the paper once that's fixed. Up to you.

[vincentarelbundock]

Thanks @andybega for your nice words and speedy review. I really appreciate it!

@leeper here's the Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1341914

With respect to https://github.com/openjournals/whedon/pull/30, I'm happy to do whatever's easiest for you. Given the nature of the package, I thought a non-latin example was neat, but it would be trivial to change the output to Italian or some such.

Just let me know what you prefer.

Thanks again for your work on JOSS!

[leeper]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1341914 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1341914 is the archive.

[leeper]

@vincentarelbundock Let's let @arfon weigh in on how to proceed. Everything else is ready to go, so that may be a trivial fix (Arfon: https://github.com/openjournals/whedon/pull/30). If it turns out it's not, then updating the paper might be the easier way to go.

[arfon]

If it turns out it's not, then updating the paper might be the easier way to go.

I tried taking https://github.com/openjournals/whedon/pull/30 for a spin and it's caused a whole bunch of problems with other packages (weird clashing config errors in packages we depend upon) which look like they are going to be non-trivial to fix.

Basically, if there is a workaround without https://github.com/openjournals/whedon/pull/30 then I think we should pursue it.

[vincentarelbundock]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

[vincentarelbundock]

@arfon Thanks a lot for looking into this. No worries. I switched from Chinese to Finnish, and the proof looks good to me.

Pinging @NilsEnevoldsen and @cjyetman in case they want to take a last look.

[leeper]

Looks good to me. @arfon I think it's back to you.

[arfon]

@andybega - many thanks for your review here and to @leeper for editing this submission ✨

@vincentarelbundock - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00848 :zap: :rocket: :boom:

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

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.00848/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00848)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00848">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00848/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

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://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=

[vincentarelbundock]

Thanks @arfon , this is great news!

I really appreciate all of your work on JOSS. This is a fantastic initiative. I'm now in the reviewer pool, so feel free to hit me up.