If you proposed https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/<pkg>/<pkg>_<version>.tar.gz and the editor is suspicious about the "src/contrib/Archive" stuff, you could propose instead https://cran.r-project.org/package=<pkg>&version=<version>, which *looks* more permanent I guess.
Iñaki On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 18:14, Kevin R. Coombes <kevin.r.coom...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am in the process of submitting a "workflow" article about an R > package (which is onCRAN) to F1000Research. The associate editor that I > am dealing with wants a "DOI" for the source code of the package being > described in the manuscript. I have already explained that CRAN > archives all versions of packages, and I sent him the URL to the archive > page for the package, However, he still seems to believe that a DOI > needs to be assigned by some site like Zenodo. > > I haven't yet responded by pointing out that CRAN has been archiving all > versions of packages since at least the year 2000, it has mirrors all > over the world, and the URL/URI used here is likely to be far more > permanent than the DOI from Zenodo. Nor have I pointed out that there > are more than 15,000 packages at CRAN, nor that not a single R user > would ever think to go look on Zenodo for an R package. > > Does anyone have other suggestions for how to respond? (I know; I could > just put the [expletive] thing into Zenodo and move on, but creating a > permanent identifier for something that will *never *be accessed just > seems stupid.) > > Thanks, > Kevin > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > -- Iñaki Úcar [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel