[R] valid package repositories
bhh at xs4all.nl
Mon Oct 2 20:49:26 CEST 2017
> On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:47, Federico Calboli <federico.calboli at kuleuven.be> wrote:
> As a referee I am trying to weed out what I see as malpractice: the promise that third parties outside the developers might actually use the code because it has been packaged as a R library, a claim that seems to boost publishing chances.
> Thus my question: when can I consider a library to be properly published and really publicly available? CRAN and BioConductor are clearly gold standards. What about Github? I am currently using the rule ‘not on CRAN == outright rejection’. If Github is as good as CRAN I will include it on my list of ‘the code is available in a functional state as claimed’.
As others have suggested:
I would insist that code is presented as valid R package which the maker has at least checked with R CMD check with no errors (preferably with the --as-cran option).
In addition I would also insist that packages have been sent to the winbuilder and passed all checks without error or warning.
More information about the R-help