Chapter 2 Project Overview

This chapter lays out key considerations, outstanding questions and tasks for purposes of generating community feedback for the project. It consists of the following sections:

Each of these sections aims to highlight what we consider some of the most important questions and issues which the project will have to address. We generally do so by posing a list of “Proposals” at the end of each of the above-listed chapters. Each of these is intended to serve as a starting point for debate, and should be considered entirely open to discussion, modification, enhancement, removal, or any other suggestion which may arise. The Proposals are primarily intended in current form to provide focal points for further consideration and discussion prior to any concrete implementation.

2.1 Project Aims

  • To foster a community of practice in which users and developers of statistical software mutually improve quality, reproducibility, and reliability of research.

  • To provide software creators with a set of tools and standards to assess the quality of their work, and processes by which to improve it.

  • To provide statistical software developers, users, and consumers of results a discoverable “badge” that transparently conveys a level of assurance of software quality and that may also serve as a symbol of professional credit.

  • To create a set of standards that may be adopted and adapted by open source and private groups, academic journals, or other statistical software evaluation projects.

  • To focus on R as primary language, but also to separate language-specific from language-agnostic components so as to maximize adaptability to other contexts.

  • To focus on problems and solutions specific to statistical software.

2.3 Outline of this document

We now briefly summarise the four sections identified at the outset of this chapter, and which comprise Chapters 4–5 and 7–8 of this book: Scope; the Peer Review Process; Standards; and Software Assessment.

2.3.1 Scope of Statistical Software Review

The scope of statistical software review considers the core task of defining the kinds of software that will be covered by our review process and standards, for which key questions are:

  • What categories of statistical software might be considered in scope?

  • What categories of statistical software might be considered out of scope?

  • How would these vary between a useful definition and typology for general use, and the specific case of our R-focused peer review system?

A key consideration in scope is identifying categories of software that (a) will benefit from our peer review process, and (b) the review process will be equipped to handle. That is, can standards and procedures be defined that are applicable, and will authors and reviewers be able to apply them? In considering these issues of definition, it will be important to consider whether it may be advantageous or necessary to develop different procedures for different sub-categories, whether in terms of categories of external form or categories of statistical software.

It will likely be particularly important for the present project to develop a categorization scheme, particularly because the set of standards envisioned by this project will be variably applicable to different categories, and understanding which standards may or may not apply to a particular piece of software will provide important information for review purposes. Individual pieces of software will often fit more than one of these categories, and we envision relating some kind of categorical checklist directly to a corresponding checklist of relevant or applicable standards.

Potential schemes for defining the scope of statistical software acceptable within our review process are considered in Chapter 4 below, with extensive consideration of potential categories in the second section of that chapter.

2.3.2 Standards for Statistical Software

Chapter 5 considers Standards for Statistical Software intended to serve both as expectations against which to compare software, and as guides which reviewers may use to assess software. Important general questions regarding standards include the following:

  • What kind of standards might apply to software in general?

  • What kind of standards might specifically apply to statistical software?

  • How might such standards differ between different languages?

  • To what extent should we aim for “verification” or “validation” of software, and how might be signify such?

2.3.3 Software Assessment

The Software Assessment section in Chapter 6 presents a general (yet non-exhaustive) overview of aspects of software which may be usefully considered for standards-based assessment, both for retrospective purposes of peer review, and for prospective use in developing software both in general, and in preparation for peer-review.

2.3.4 Statistical Software Peer Review Process

Our point of departure for our process is the rOpenSci software peer review process, which has operated for five years, and has reviewed over >200 packages, primarily in areas of data life cycle management. However, we aim to reassess this process in light of other models and needs specific to statistical software. Chapter 7 considers a few analogous processes of peer review, gleaning aspects which may be useful to adopt and adapt for our system. Chapter 8 then describes the peer review process in terms of the series of steps we currently envision comprising our system.

2.4 Community

A core goal of the project is the building and maintenance of a community of practice that will facilitate dissemination, adoption, and improvement of standards and peer review. In striving for this goal, the following questions are important:

  • What outreach should we conduct to maximize diversity and inclusion in the process?

  • How should this process involve other relevant communities in fields including software development, statistics, applied statistics (in various subfields)

  • What fora should we manage for developers, users, reviewers and editors to communicate? To what extent should we reuse existing fora from rOpenSci or other organizations?

We now briefly consider the three aspects of community relevant to this project: communities of users, of developers, and of reviewers. Note that several of the kinds of “metrics” alluded to in the following lines are given explicit consideration at the end of this document.

Software use and surrounding community:

  • What sort of metrics might provide insight into community use of software?

  • How might such community engagement be enhanced to improve such metrics?

Software development and surrounding community:

  • What sort of metrics might provide insight into community development of software?

  • How might such community engagement be enhanced to improve such metrics?

Reviewer pool and qualifications:

  • What is the extent and type of effort expected of reviewers?

  • To what extent might searches for suitable reviewers be automated?

  • What sort of metrics might be useful in such searches?

In each case the project will strive to cultivate diverse, inclusive, and geographically expansive communities, and metrics to describe such aspects may also be important, as may automated tools to monitor community engagement and development. Note that these aspects of community are not explicitly addressed throughout any of the remainder of this document. It is important the future revisions return to this point, and ensure that each of the following sections are appropriately modified to ensure effective consideration and incorporation of the concerns listed immediately above.