Building Software and Communities With Peer Review
summary
Claims concrete outcomes: four years of rOpenSci peer review drives adoption of standards, finds real bugs, and scaffolds maintainers. Process combines ~250 packages reviewed with non-anonymous cross-community review and tooling: CI, linters, test coverage, and the goodpractice checks. pyOpenSci expands the model into Python with six packages so far. Reviews use checklists, runnable vignettes, and map-driven source inspection; organizers take on maintenance when authors vanish.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (12)
- 0:00Introduction
- 3:12Software vs academic review
- 6:23Peer review goals
- 9:11Quality in long-tail apps
- 11:40Building community
- 14:04Peer review in teams
- 15:11Shared review standards
- 21:19Automating review standards
- 24:31Effective review steps
- 33:32Five years of experience
- 34:57How to participate
- 42:26Q&A
related talks
06mReviewing packages for better science
26mrOpenSci Champions: Building Communities of Open-Source Leaders
51mBuilding Strong and Sustainable Open Source Projects
30mFriends don't let friends package alone
28mIt's not just code: managing an open source project
01h 30mPanel: Building a Stronger Open Source Python Data Community
32m"Making an open source package - lessons learned"
41mHow to Grow an Open Source Project: A Case Study of Python