LibLabReviews: Encourage Effective Peer Review Practices with Useful Tooling

[ ] Did you source all your files before pushing from start to finish (ie knit Rmd) without errors?
[ ] Did you make sure that your code is portable (eg did you replace absolute path references vs relative path references)?
[ ] Did you run some basic assertions (eg joins dont increase rows accidentally)?
[ ] Did you flag anywhere that you need or want help for the reviewer?
[ ] Did you provide the why of your code, not just this the how/what?
[ ] Did you update your project README or other documentation to help your reviewer?
[ ] Could you return to this 6 months from now and know what's going on and agree with choices you've made?

- [ ] Prefer Issues - [ ] Prefer In-Line Commenting

[ ] Do I have the data I need to run the code?
[ ] Can you run all files locally?
[ ] Is the nature of the review clear to me? What am I being asked to review?
[ ] Do the assertions (informal or formal) look sufficient based on the description of the PR?
[ ] Are assumptions laid out and clear? Are assumptions missing or need to be reconsidered?
[ ] Is the story and intent of the work clear to me? Is the audience clear?
[ ] Are all quantitative summaries of the data reproducible (eg if I run regression, are my coefficients same as whats in the output from the reviewee)?

### RUN THIS FUNCTION AND REPLACE THIS CHUNK BY PASTING FROM CLIPBOARD
LibLabReviews::reproducibility_receipt()

aclu-national/LibLabReviews documentation built on Aug. 20, 2020, 7:23 a.m.

Note that we can't provide technical support on individual packages. You should contact the package authors for that.

Reviewee Checklist