R软件包同行评审文档中的技术债：一个rOpenSci案例研究
Technical Debt in the Peer-Review Documentation of R Packages: a rOpenSci Case Study
摘要：
上下文：技术债务是一个用来描述代码“不太正确”的隐喻。虽然TD研究已经获得了动力，但TD还没有在非面向对象（OO）或科学软件（如R）中得到彻底的研究。R是一种多范式程序设计语言，近年来在数据科学和统计应用中的流行程度有所增加。由于R固有的通过用户贡献的包扩展的能力，一些社区领导的组织被创建来组织和同行评审包，以共同努力提高它们的质量。尽管如此，众所周知，大多数R用户没有技术编程背景，来自多个学科。目的：本研究的目标是调查TD在同行评审文件的R包由rOpenSci领导。方法：我们收集了来自157个软件包的5000多条评论，这些软件包已被审查并批准在rOpenSci上发表。我们手动分析了软件包作者、rOpenSci编辑和评审员在评审过程中发布的这些评论的样本数据集，以调查这些评论中存在的TD类型。结果如下：我们的研究结果包括：（一）来自我们的同行评审分析TD的分类（二）文件债务是最普遍的债务类型（三）不同的用户角色与不同类型的TD有关。例如，评审者倾向于报告某些TD类型而不是其他角色，并且他们报告的TD类型与软件包作者报告的TD类型不同。结论：科学软件或同行评审中的TD分析几乎不存在。我们的研究是一个先驱，但在R包的背景下。然而，我们的研究结果可以作为复制研究的起点，考虑到我们的公共数据集，在其他科学软件中进行类似的分析或调查我们研究结果背后的理由。
英文摘要：
Context: Technical Debt is a metaphor used to describe code that is "not quite right." Although TD studies have gained momentum, TD has yet to be studied as thoroughly in non-Object-Oriented (OO) or scientific software such as R. R is a multi-paradigm programming language, whose popularity in data science and statistical applications has amplified in recent years. Due to R's inherent ability to expand through user-contributed packages, several community-led organizations were created to organize and peer-review packages in a concerted effort to increase their quality. Nonetheless, it is well-known that most R users do not have a technical programming background, being from multiple disciplines. Objective: The goal of this study is to investigate TD in the peer-review documentation of R packages led by rOpenSci. Method: We collected over 5000 comments from 157 packages that had been reviewed and approved to be published at rOpenSci. We manually analyzed a sample dataset of these comments posted by package authors, editors of rOpenSci, and reviewers during the review process to investigate the TD types present in these reviews. Results: The findings of our study include (i) a taxonomy of TD derived from our analysis of the peer-reviews (ii) documentation debt as being the most prevalent type of debt (iii) different user roles are concerned with different types of TD. For instance, reviewers tend to report some TD types more than other roles, and the TD types they report are different from those reported by the authors of a package. Conclusion: TD analysis in scientific software or peer-review is almost non-existent. Our study is a pioneer but within the context of R packages. However, our findings can serve as a starting point for replication studies, given our public datasets, to perform similar analyses in other scientific software or to investigate the rationale behind our findings.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
