[R-pkg-devel] DOI for archived package?
I have found reminding editors of this editorial to be useful: https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2869 Community repositories that carry out testing are ideal for commonly used
programs (for example, those used in statistical analysis), and a fair proportion of the genetics community is fortunately familiar with the Comprehensive R Archive Network (http://cran.r-project.org/) and the principles of stewardship of modular software embodied in the Bioconductor suite (http://www.bioconductor.org/). The journal has sufficient experience with these resources to endorse their use by authors. We do not yet provide any endorsement for the suitability or usefulness of other solutions but will work with our authors and readers, as well as with other journals, to arrive at a set of principles and recommendations.
As a tangential but informational comment, Bioconductor started minting minimalist DOIs for packages a couple years ago. I do not think DOIs have seen broad uptake as a citation mechanism for Bioc packages (I states without evidence), but the opportunity arose to do so and we took it. https://github.com/seandavi/BiocPkgTools/blob/master/R/newBiocPkgDOI.R Sean
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:36 PM I?aki Ucar <iucar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
If you proposed https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/ <pkg>/<pkg>_<version>.tar.gz and the editor is suspicious about the "src/contrib/Archive" stuff, you could propose instead https://cran.r-project.org/package=<pkg>&version=<version>, which *looks* more permanent I guess. I?aki On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 18:14, Kevin R. Coombes <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am in the process of submitting a "workflow" article about an R
package (which is onCRAN) to F1000Research. The associate editor that I
am dealing with wants a "DOI" for the source code of the package being
described in the manuscript. I have already explained that CRAN
archives all versions of packages, and I sent him the URL to the archive
page for the package, However, he still seems to believe that a DOI
needs to be assigned by some site like Zenodo.
I haven't yet responded by pointing out that CRAN has been archiving all
versions of packages since at least the year 2000, it has mirrors all
over the world, and the URL/URI used here is likely to be far more
permanent than the DOI from Zenodo. Nor have I pointed out that there
are more than 15,000 packages at CRAN, nor that not a single R user
would ever think to go look on Zenodo for an R package.
Does anyone have other suggestions for how to respond? (I know; I could
just put the [expletive] thing into Zenodo and move on, but creating a
permanent identifier for something that will *never *be accessed just
seems stupid.)
Thanks,
Kevin
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
--
I?aki ?car
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
Sean Davis, MD, PhD Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892 https://seandavi.github.io/ https://twitter.com/seandavis12 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]