You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It's good practice for as much of our internal tooling as possible to be subject the standards of RO review, but many of those tools do not strictly fall under any of our categories in Aims and Scope (e.g. ropensci/software-review#671). We should add a category such as
rOpenSci internal tools: packages created and/or used by the rOpenSci team to support software peer review and other related initiatives.
In the review templates, we would add this category with the caveat "(for staff, editor, or pre-approved packages only.)"
@ropensci/editors, give a 👍 / 👎 , comment below!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It's good practice for as much of our internal tooling as possible to be subject the standards of RO review, but many of those tools do not strictly fall under any of our categories in Aims and Scope (e.g. ropensci/software-review#671). We should add a category such as
In the review templates, we would add this category with the caveat "(for staff, editor, or pre-approved packages only.)"
@ropensci/editors, give a 👍 / 👎 , comment below!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: