I have found reminding editors of this editorial to be useful: https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2869
Community repositories that carry out testing are ideal for commonly used > programs (for example, those used in statistical analysis), and a fair > proportion of the genetics community is fortunately familiar with the > Comprehensive R Archive Network (http://cran.r-project.org/) and the > principles of stewardship of modular software embodied in the Bioconductor > suite (http://www.bioconductor.org/). The journal has sufficient > experience with these resources to endorse their use by authors. We do not > yet provide any endorsement for the suitability or usefulness of other > solutions but will work with our authors and readers, as well as with other > journals, to arrive at a set of principles and recommendations. > As a tangential but informational comment, Bioconductor started minting minimalist DOIs for packages a couple years ago. I do not think DOIs have seen broad uptake as a citation mechanism for Bioc packages (I states without evidence), but the opportunity arose to do so and we took it. https://github.com/seandavi/BiocPkgTools/blob/master/R/newBiocPkgDOI.R Sean On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:36 PM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > 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 > -- Sean Davis, MD, PhD Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892 https://seandavi.github.io/ https://twitter.com/seandavis12 [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel