[BioC] new approach to Peer Review data collection

Vincent Carey 525-2265 stvjc@channing.harvard.edu
Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:08:06 -0400 (EDT)

Here is the latest static table of peer review
allocations for bioconductor packages.

Package       Maintainer     Version     Peer reviewer
-------       ----------     -------     -------------
Biobase       RG, VC         0.5-2       RI [vol 6apr]
annotate      RG             0.5         JZ [vol 8apr]
affy          RI             0.8.0       BE [vol 8apr]
AnnBuilder    JZ             0.5         RI [vol 6apr]
bin2d         RG             0.5
edd           VC             0.5-2       DB [vol 8apr]
genecluster   RG             0.1
genefilter    RG             0.5-2       SD [vol 6apr]
geneplotter   JG             0.1         DB [vol 8apr]
rhdf5         RG             0.1-0
multtest      YG             0.6
NBIR          VC             0.1-1
RanForests    VC             0.2
ROC           VC             0.5-4
tkWidgets     JZ             0.5         JG [vol 8apr]
marrayClasses SD             0.1
marrayNorm    SD             0.1
marrayPlots   SD             0.1
marrayInput   JY             0.1         JZ [vol 9apr]

I have created an R structure with this package/version list and
a function df2html that is used to create the information in
PRevSandBox, accessible at the wiki under the peer review

To get to the new structure, go to the bioconductor wiki,
and follow the link to peer review from the first page.

there is a new introductory paragraph on the PeerReview
page with a link to PRevSandBox.  Go there.

You will see an HTML version of the table above.  The
rightmost column is a column of anchors.  Clicking
on an anchor takes you down a level into a package-specific
evaluation area.  [Some packages have question-mark next
to the PRNode suffix ... you can click on the question
mark to establish the new area yourself]

At the moment we do not have a specified structure for
peer review data but that will be forthcoming.

If you don't want to use the wiki, just email me your text
and i will get it in there.

I have little experience programming the wiki content.
Anyone with thoughts about how to get a nice template
in there to help reviewers cover the key points for the
review should e-mail me, or implement it in the sandbox.
At my current level of knowledge I would have to go to
each package's node and enter a template more or less
manually.  of course that burden can be passed to the
reviewer, and may be.