[R] valid package repositories

[Berend Hasselman]

> 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.

Berend Hasselman