I would be on a similar wavelength to Peter, I believe it should be
more about the state of the package rather than the location.
Yes, the location matters to a degree but I think GitHub is more than
well enough established at this point to consider their hosting
sufficiently reliable.
The most im
Here's my view on this:
CRAN = Comprehensive R Archive Network. The "Archive" part is very
important - it "promises" the research community that R packages that
have ever been published on CRAN, and all the versions of each
package, will be available also in the future. It requires quite a
bit f
> On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:47, Federico Calboli
> 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 publish
I tend to regard GitHub as a bit of wild west... anyone can upload anything
there, working or not. CRAN packages at least have to compile so there is some
additional verification in being there.
GitHub does have the advantage that you can easily download it and run an
example if the authors hav
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Federico Calboli
wrote:
>
> 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
Hi All,
I noticed that it is quite common to find in papers mentions to ‘R libraries’
developed for the algorithms/models/code/whatever that is being described by
the paper, so that third parties will be able to use said method for
themselves. On further enquiries these libraries are not actua
6 matches
Mail list logo
