From 1e8e8c28c510e9a1c4e435dc2cd16a6b49c6aed7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:52:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Fix broken link + add link + cleanup --- inst/templates/review.txt | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/inst/templates/review.txt b/inst/templates/review.txt index e497a849..9cb9812e 100644 --- a/inst/templates/review.txt +++ b/inst/templates/review.txt @@ -12,15 +12,14 @@ The structure of this review is up to you, but it's usually about a page long an * Article: Is anything unclear? Is anything missing? Are the examples helpful? Is there sufficient background, including alternative approaches in R? * Package: Could the functions presented be improved? Some ideas at http://bit.ly/1aYwkp3. Could the code be improved? Some good advice on code style can be found in - - "R packages" chapter 7 by Hadley Wickham at https://r-pkgs.org/r.html, + - "R Packages" chapter 7 by Hadley Wickham and Jenny Bryan at https://r-pkgs.org/Code.html, - "rOpenSci Packages: Development, Maintenance, and Peer Review" at https://devguide.ropensci.org/building.html, - "What I look for in 'Software Papers'" by Carl Boettiger at https://www.carlboettiger.info/2013/06/13/what-I-look-for-in-software-papers.html - - Using the "styler" package, + - Using the ["styler" package](https://styler.r-lib.org/), - and avoiding the features warned against by Jenny Bryan at https://www.tidyverse.org/articles/2017/12/workflow-vs-script/ Reviews should be returned by email. Our preferred format for the review is a text file attachment, but a pdf is also acceptable. This will be sent on to the authors. Your email should also give your overall recommendation (this part is for the editor only): Accept with minor revisions (you won't see it again), accept with major revisions (you'll re-review the revisions), or reject. - Please let me know if you are willing to take on this review. I would like to receive the review, if possible, by {{date}}. Regards,