From ee9979811b5912d6045adb13eeac9cbad4fa790d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 01/31] start policy updates on ai tool usage --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 9 +++++++++ softwarereview_policies.Rmd | 10 ++++++++++ softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 7 +++++++ 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index 5aea21a9f..5985965e4 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -35,6 +35,15 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag - Your README file should strive to explain your package's functionality and aims, assuming readers have little to no domain knowledge. All technical tems, including references to other software, should be clarified. - Your package will continue to evolve after review, the chapter on *Package evolution* [provides guidance about the topic](#evolution). +### Use of generative AI tools + +The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to describe how such tools may have been used, and to include links to any relevant aspects of repositories. +A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect, and the more we will expect such tools to have been used _systematically_. +Systematic tool usage includes any approach which transparently and progressively details the contribution of generative AI tools to software production. +Examples of systematic generative AI tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) to [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). +These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document the _process_ of development alongside the software itself. + ## Preparing for Submission {#preparing-for-submission} ### Asking for help diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd index 87819a555..b5615f193 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd @@ -261,6 +261,16 @@ The following resources may be helpful for researchers, package authors, editors - Taylor, J., \& Pagliari, C. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) +## Use of generative AI tools {#policies-ai]} + +Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in our submission forms, where we also ask you to, + +> please describe usage, and include links to any relevant aspects of your repository. + +As described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/), our policies on the use of generative AI tools are expected to develop alongside development in both tools themselves, as well as the way their contribute to software development. +We expect all submitting authors to transparently disclose how generative AI tools may have contributed to any software submitted for peer review. +Details are provided in both the [_Guide for Authors_](#authors-guide) and [_Guide for Reviewers_](#reviewerguide). + ## Code of Conduct {#code-of-conduct} rOpenSci's community is our best asset. diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index 94eb744fb..68beff021 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -105,6 +105,13 @@ and Note that if the package is not submitted via the default/main branch, you need to switch to the submitted branch before starting your review. +### Use of generative AI tools + +The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. +As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. +Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. +We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. + ### Feedback on the process {#feedback-on-the-process} We encourage you to ask questions and provide feedback on the review process on https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues From c1a156e27b82ebd41d2045a40a9032231e4e2b96 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 16:09:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 02/31] add suggestion for reviewers to ask approval for ai tool usage --- softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index 68beff021..0cd7a5eab 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ Note that if the package is not submitted via the default/main branch, you need ### Use of generative AI tools The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. +Reviewers should generally request approval from submitting authors and editors before using generative AI tools, and do so publicly within the review thread. As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. From 63bd811c3d5489327c08db0558618acbcc1a9ddb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:14:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 03/31] start policy updates on ai tool usage --- softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index 0cd7a5eab..41528d389 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@ As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. +### Use of generative AI tools + +The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. +As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. +Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. +We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. + ### Feedback on the process {#feedback-on-the-process} We encourage you to ask questions and provide feedback on the review process on https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues From 408eff00c602b57efe909d985b9487946c65d27b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 16:09:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 04/31] add suggestion for reviewers to ask approval for ai tool usage --- softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index 41528d389..ae2c37de5 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. ### Use of generative AI tools The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. +Reviewers should generally request approval from submitting authors and editors before using generative AI tools, and do so publicly within the review thread. As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. From 45a08f17def1da9c81cb675afc4e9f1604877556 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 09:48:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 05/31] `babeldown::deepl_branch_update()` --- softwarereview_author.es.Rmd | 12 +++++++++--- softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd | 12 +++++++++--- softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd | 13 ++++++++++--- softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd | 13 ++++++++++--- softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- 6 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd index fba6db4b4..d716f0022 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd @@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ aliases: - authors-guide.html --- - # Guía para quienes crean paquetes {#authors-guide} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -35,6 +34,15 @@ Esta guía condensa el proceso de revisión por pares desde el punto de vista de - El archivo *README* debe esforzarse por explicar las funcionalidades y los objetivos de tu paquete asumiendo poco o ningún conocimiento del dominio. Además, debe aclarar todos los temas técnicos, incluidas las referencias a otros software. - Tu paquete seguirá evolucionando después de la revisión, el capítulo sobre *Evolución de paquetes* [proporciona orientación sobre el tema](#evolution). +### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa + +El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable en los paquetes enviados para revisión por pares, como se describe en [nuestra entrada inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +Como se indica en [nuestras políticas generales](#policies-ai) exigimos a todos los autores que envíen propuestas que describan cómo se han utilizado dichas herramientas, y que incluyan enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de los repositorios. +Una regla muy general es que cuanto mayor sea el uso de herramientas de IA generativa en un envío a rOpenSci, más documentación esperaremos y más esperaremos que se hayan utilizado dichas herramientas. *sistemáticamente*. +El uso sistemático de herramientas incluye cualquier enfoque que detalle de forma transparente y progresiva la contribución de las herramientas de IA generativa a la producción de software. +Los ejemplos de herramientas sistemáticas de IA generativa van desde [el "spec-kit" de GitHub para el desarrollo basado en especificaciones](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) a [nuestra propia herramienta experimental para documentar las decisiones de diseño de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). +Todas ellas comparten el patrón común de producir artefactos adicionales que documentan el *proceso* de desarrollo junto con el propio software. + ## Preparación para el envío {#preparing-for-submission} ### Pedir ayuda @@ -85,5 +93,3 @@ Si tiene intención de enviar un artículo científico sobre tu paquete, rOpenSc - Una vez que tu paquete sea aceptado, te proporcionaremos más instrucciones sobre la transferencia de tu repositorio al repositorio de rOpenSci. Nuestro [código de conducta](#code-of-conduct) es obligatorio para la participación en nuestro proceso de revisión. - - diff --git a/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd index 08f0aaf9d..cb369ba1d 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd @@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ aliases: - authors-guide.html --- - # Guia para Autores {#authors-guide} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -35,6 +34,15 @@ Este guia conciso apresenta o processo de revisão de software por pares, para v - Seu arquivo README deve assegurar-se em explicar a funcionalidade e os objetivos do seu pacote, presumindo que os leitores tenham pouco ou nenhum conhecimento do domínio. Todos os termos técnicos, inclusive as referências a outros softwares, devem ser esclarecidos. - Seu pacote continuará a evoluir após a revisão. O capítulo sobre *Evolução do pacote* [fornece mais orientações sobre este tópico](#evolution). +### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas + +O uso de ferramentas de IA generativas é aceitável em pacotes enviados para revisão por pares, conforme descrito em [nossa publicação inicial no blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +Conforme declarado em [nossas políticas gerais](#policies-ai) exigimos que todos os autores que enviam artigos descrevam como essas ferramentas podem ter sido usadas e incluam links para quaisquer aspectos relevantes dos repositórios. +Uma regra geral é que, quanto maior for o uso de ferramentas de IA generativas em uma submissão do rOpenSci, mais documentação será esperada e mais esperamos que essas ferramentas tenham sido usadas *sistematicamente*. +O uso sistemático de ferramentas inclui qualquer abordagem que detalhe de forma transparente e progressiva a contribuição das ferramentas de IA generativas para a produção de software. +Exemplos de ferramentas sistemáticas de IA generativa variam de [O "spec-kit" do GitHub para desenvolvimento orientado por especificações](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) ao [nossa própria ferramenta experimental para documentar decisões de design de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). +Todas elas compartilham o padrão comum de produzir artefatos adicionais que documentam as decisões de design de software. *processo* de desenvolvimento juntamente com o próprio software. + ## Preparando para Submissão {#preparing-for-submission} ### Solicitação de ajuda @@ -85,5 +93,3 @@ Se você pretende enviar um manuscrito de acompanhamento para seu o pacote, a rO - Assim que seu pacote for aprovado, forneceremos mais instruções sobre a transferência do seu repositório para o repositório da rOpenSci. Nosso [código de conduta](#code-of-conduct) é obrigatório para todos os envolvidos em nosso processo de revisão. - - diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd index 257edf53c..72256bf75 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd @@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ aliases: - policies.html --- - # Políticas de la Revisión por Pares de Software {#policies} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -261,11 +260,19 @@ Los siguientes recursos pueden ser útiles para quienes investigan, desarrollan - Taylor, J., y Pagliari, C. (2018).Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) +## Uso de herramientas de IA generativa {#policies-ai\]} + +Los autores deben revelar cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa en nuestros formularios de envío, donde también te pedimos que lo hagas, + +> por favor, describe el uso, e incluye enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de tu repositorio. + +Como se describe en [nuestra entrada inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen paralelamente al desarrollo tanto de las propias herramientas como de la forma en que contribuyen al desarrollo del software. +Esperamos que todos los autores que envíen trabajos revelen de forma transparente cómo han contribuido las herramientas de IA generativa a cualquier software enviado para su revisión por pares. +Los detalles se facilitan tanto en el [*Guía para autores*](#authors-guide) y [*Guía para revisores*](#reviewerguide). + ## Código de conducta {#code-of-conduct} La comunidad de rOpenSci es nuestro mejor recurso. Tanto si colaboras habitualmente como si recién llegas, nos esforzamos para que éste lugar sea seguro para ti y te apoyamos en lo que necesites. Tenemos un Código de Conducta que se aplica a todas las personas que participan en la comunidad de rOpenSci, incluidos el equipo y la dirección de rOpenSci y a todos las formas de interacción en línea o en persona. El [Código de Conducta](https://ropensci.org/codigo-de-conducta/) se mantiene en el sitio web de rOpenSci. - - diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd index 154a4f61d..59bfbb89a 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd @@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ aliases: - policies.html --- - # Políticas de revisão de software por pares {#policies} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -261,11 +260,19 @@ Os recursos a seguir podem ser úteis para pesquisadores(as), autores(as) de pac - Taylor, J., \& Pagliari, C. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325 [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) +## Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas {#policies-ai\]} + +Os autores devem divulgar qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativas em nossos formulários de envio, onde também pedimos que você o faça, + +> descreva o uso e inclua links para quaisquer aspectos relevantes do seu repositório. + +Conforme descrito em [nossa postagem inicial no blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) nossas políticas sobre o uso de ferramentas de IA generativa devem se desenvolver juntamente com o desenvolvimento das ferramentas em si, bem como a maneira como elas contribuem para o desenvolvimento de software. +Esperamos que todos os autores que enviam artigos divulguem de forma transparente como as ferramentas de IA generativas podem ter contribuído para qualquer software enviado para revisão por pares. +Os detalhes são fornecidos na seção [*Guia para autores*](#authors-guide) e [*Guia para revisores*](#reviewerguide). + ## Código de Conduta {#code-of-conduct} A comunidade da rOpenSci é o nosso melhor patrimônio. Seja você uma pessoa colaboradora assídua ou recém-chegada, nós nos preocupamos em fazer deste um lugar seguro para você, por isso te apoiamos. Temos um Código de Conduta que se aplica a todas as pessoas que participam da comunidade rOpenSci, incluindo a equipe e a liderança da rOpenSci, e a todos os modos de interação online ou pessoalmente. O [Código de Conduta](https://ropensci.org/pt/c%C3%B3digo-de-conduta/) é mantido no site da rOpenSci. - - diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd index e84324e7d..f2cd34e08 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd @@ -99,6 +99,22 @@ Esto Ten en cuenta que si el paquete no se envía a través de la *branch* principal o por defecto, tienes que cambiar a la *branch* usada para enviar antes de comenzar tu revisión. +### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa + +El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores como para los revisores, pero los revisores no pueden utilizarlas para fundamentar directamente sus decisiones o recomendaciones. +Por lo general, los revisores deben solicitar la aprobación de los autores y editores antes de utilizar herramientas de IA generativa, y hacerlo públicamente en el hilo de la revisión. +Al igual que esperamos de los autores, exigimos a los revisores que revelen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. +Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. +Pedimos a los revisores que sean lo más transparentes posible. + +### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa + +El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores como para los revisores, pero los revisores no pueden utilizarlas para fundamentar directamente sus decisiones o recomendaciones. +Por lo general, los revisores deben solicitar la aprobación de los autores y editores antes de utilizar herramientas de IA generativa, y hacerlo públicamente en el hilo de la revisión. +Al igual que esperamos de los autores, exigimos a los revisores que revelen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. +Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. +Pedimos a los revisores que sean lo más transparentes posible. + ### Devoluciones sobre el proceso {#feedback-on-the-process} Te animamos a que preguntes y opines sobre el proceso de revisión en https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues @@ -115,5 +131,3 @@ Te animamos a que preguntes y opines sobre el proceso de revisión en https://gi Las personas que enviaron el paquete a revisón deben responder en un plazo de 2 semanas con sus cambios en el paquete en respuesta a tu revisión. En esta fase, te pedimos que respondas si los cambios abordan suficientemente las cuestiones planteadas en tu revisión. Fomentamos el debate continuo entre quienes enviaron el paquete y quienes lo revisan, y también puedes pedir que quienes están a cargo de la edición aclaren cosas en el mismo hilo. Utilizarás la [plantilla de aprobación](#approval2template). - - diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd index 7ca6fe245..8da274fca 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@ - # Guia para revisores {#reviewerguide} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -99,6 +98,22 @@ Como resultado: Observe que, se o pacote não for enviado por meio da *branch* padrão/principal, você precisará mudar para a *branch* enviada antes de iniciar a revisão. +### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas + +O uso de ferramentas de IA generativas é aceitável tanto para os autores que enviam quanto para os revisores, mas elas não podem ser usadas pelos revisores para informar diretamente quaisquer decisões ou recomendações. +Em geral, os revisores devem solicitar a aprovação dos autores e editores que enviam os artigos antes de usar ferramentas de IA generativas, e fazê-lo publicamente no tópico de revisão. +Assim como esperamos dos autores, exigimos que os revisores divulguem qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativas com o máximo de detalhes possível. +Exemplos de uso aceitável incluem a geração de uma visão geral da funcionalidade do pacote ou a iteração em um histórico do Git para fornecer uma visão geral das decisões de desenvolvimento. +Pedimos aos revisores que sejam o mais transparentes possível. + +### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas + +O uso de ferramentas de IA generativas é aceitável tanto para autores que enviam quanto para revisores, mas elas não podem ser usadas pelos revisores para informar diretamente quaisquer decisões ou recomendações. +Em geral, os revisores devem solicitar a aprovação dos autores e editores que enviam os artigos antes de usar ferramentas de IA generativas, e fazê-lo publicamente no tópico de revisão. +Assim como esperamos dos autores, exigimos que os revisores divulguem qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativas com o máximo de detalhes possível. +Exemplos de uso aceitável incluem a geração de uma visão geral da funcionalidade do pacote ou a iteração em um histórico do Git para fornecer uma visão geral das decisões de desenvolvimento. +Pedimos aos revisores que sejam o mais transparentes possível. + ### Comentários sobre o processo {#feedback-on-the-process} Incentivamos você a fazer perguntas e fornecer feedbacks sobre o processo de revisão em https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues @@ -115,5 +130,3 @@ Incentivamos você a fazer perguntas e fornecer feedbacks sobre o processo de re Os(as) autores(as) devem responder dentro de 2 (duas) semanas com as alterações feitas no pacote em resposta à sua avaliação. Nesse estágio, pedimos que você avalie se as alterações são suficientes para resolver as questões levantadas em sua revisão. Incentivamos a discussão contínua entre autores(as) de pacotes e revisores(as), e você também pode pedir aos editores que esclareçam os problemas no tópico de revisão. Você usará o [modelo de aprovação](#approval2template). - - From 89863308841a7187c3c63187f9c3ac174135d44f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 09:50:11 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 06/31] news item --- booknews.Rmd | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/booknews.Rmd b/booknews.Rmd index e21821c28..faece193e 100644 --- a/booknews.Rmd +++ b/booknews.Rmd @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ ## Dev version +- 2026-05-22, document current AI policies. - 2026-04-10, two fixes to roxygen2 tags mentions (#1000, #1001, `@Pakillo`). Now 4 digits for PRs and issues! ## 1.0.0 From 0d78e1247a8ba7f560c266c1e4fd774c2042ce5a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 14:37:22 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 07/31] also add an 'ai' checkbox on reviewer template --- templates/review.md | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/templates/review.md b/templates/review.md index 732b40c24..797dfa930 100644 --- a/templates/review.md +++ b/templates/review.md @@ -33,6 +33,15 @@ The package includes all the following forms of documentation: - [ ] **Automated tests:** Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine. - [ ] **Packaging guidelines**: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines. +#### Use of generative AI tools + + +- [ ] Generative AI tools were used to assist this review + +Only if you tick that box: Explain the contribution of such tools to your review. + +--- + Estimated hours spent reviewing: - [ ] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file. From 3c9df0d08c0b8d3b97cfaa138a57a9dc79cac26a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 15:31:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 08/31] add translations --- templates/review.es.md | 11 +++++++++++ templates/review.pt.md | 10 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/templates/review.es.md b/templates/review.es.md index bc85aec4a..32ddbe4a7 100644 --- a/templates/review.es.md +++ b/templates/review.es.md @@ -34,6 +34,17 @@ El paquete incluye todos los siguientes tipos de documentación: - [ ] **Pruebas automáticas:** Hay *tests* unitarios que cubren las funciones esenciales dentro del paquete con un rango razonable de entradas y condiciones. Todas las pruebas corren correctamente en la computadora local. - [ ] **Directrices de empaquetado:** El paquete cumple las directrices de empaquetado de rOpenSci. + +#### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa + + +- [ ] Se utilizaron herramientas de IA generativa para realizar esta revisión + +Solo si marca esa casilla: explique la contribución de dichas herramientas a su revisión. + +--- + + Estimación de horas dedicadas a la revisión: - [ ] Si quienes son responsables del paquete lo consideran apropiado, estoy de acuerdo en que se me reconozca en el archivo *DESCRIPTION* del paquete con rol de revisión ("rev"). diff --git a/templates/review.pt.md b/templates/review.pt.md index faadefe2e..7a011d972 100644 --- a/templates/review.pt.md +++ b/templates/review.pt.md @@ -33,6 +33,16 @@ O pacote inclui todas as seguintes formas de documentação: - [ ] **Testes automatizados:**Os testes unitários cobrem funções essenciais do pacote e uma gama razoável de *inputs* e condições. Todos os testes passam na máquina local. - [ ] **Diretrizes de empacotamento**: O pacote está em conformidade com as diretrizes de empacotamento da rOpenSci. +#### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativa + + +- [ ] Foram utilizadas ferramentas de IA generativa para auxiliar nesta revisão + +Somente se você marcar essa opção: Explique a contribuição dessas ferramentas para a sua revisão. + +--- + + Horas estimadas gastas na revisão: - [ ] Caso as pessoas autoras do pacote considerem apropriado, concordo em ser reconhecido(a) como revisor(a) do pacote (função "rev") no arquivo DESCRIPTION do pacote. From 993339ae3a5d11943fa9bc52888da57e95e5c544 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:27:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 09/31] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Yanina Bellini Saibene --- softwarereview_author.es.Rmd | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd index d716f0022..a88629c5b 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd @@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ Esta guía condensa el proceso de revisión por pares desde el punto de vista de ### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa -El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable en los paquetes enviados para revisión por pares, como se describe en [nuestra entrada inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). -Como se indica en [nuestras políticas generales](#policies-ai) exigimos a todos los autores que envíen propuestas que describan cómo se han utilizado dichas herramientas, y que incluyan enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de los repositorios. -Una regla muy general es que cuanto mayor sea el uso de herramientas de IA generativa en un envío a rOpenSci, más documentación esperaremos y más esperaremos que se hayan utilizado dichas herramientas. *sistemáticamente*. +El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable en los paquetes enviados para revisión por pares, como se describe en [nuestro artículo en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +Como se indica en [nuestras políticas generales](#policies-ai) exigimos a todas las personas autoras que envíen propuestas que describan cómo se han utilizado dichas herramientas, y que incluyan enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de los repositorios. +Una regla general es que, cuanto más se utilicen herramientas de IA generativa en en un paquete enviado a rOpenSci, más documentación esperaremos recibir. Además esperaremos que dichas herramientas se hayan utilizado *sistemáticamente*. El uso sistemático de herramientas incluye cualquier enfoque que detalle de forma transparente y progresiva la contribución de las herramientas de IA generativa a la producción de software. Los ejemplos de herramientas sistemáticas de IA generativa van desde [el "spec-kit" de GitHub para el desarrollo basado en especificaciones](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) a [nuestra propia herramienta experimental para documentar las decisiones de diseño de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). Todas ellas comparten el patrón común de producir artefactos adicionales que documentan el *proceso* de desarrollo junto con el propio software. From 3a21983a7aef119f2a7fd7b67b9ed1420ea231a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:28:07 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 10/31] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Yanina Bellini Saibene --- softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd index 72256bf75..cfedec830 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd @@ -262,13 +262,13 @@ Los siguientes recursos pueden ser útiles para quienes investigan, desarrollan ## Uso de herramientas de IA generativa {#policies-ai\]} -Los autores deben revelar cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa en nuestros formularios de envío, donde también te pedimos que lo hagas, +Las personas autoras del paquete deben informar cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa en su paquete, en el momento que realizan el envío. También te pedimos que lo hagas, > por favor, describe el uso, e incluye enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de tu repositorio. Como se describe en [nuestra entrada inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen paralelamente al desarrollo tanto de las propias herramientas como de la forma en que contribuyen al desarrollo del software. Esperamos que todos los autores que envíen trabajos revelen de forma transparente cómo han contribuido las herramientas de IA generativa a cualquier software enviado para su revisión por pares. -Los detalles se facilitan tanto en el [*Guía para autores*](#authors-guide) y [*Guía para revisores*](#reviewerguide). +Los detalles de como informar este uso se facilitan tanto en la [*Guía para personas autoras*](#authors-guide) como en la [*Guía para el equipo de revisión*](#reviewerguide). ## Código de conducta {#code-of-conduct} From aec399b86fa49d8fcddb2dffe62c6c5ee820d718 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:34:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 11/31] Update softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd Co-authored-by: Yanina Bellini Saibene --- softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd index cfedec830..f451fb4ba 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ Las personas autoras del paquete deben informar cualquier uso de herramientas de > por favor, describe el uso, e incluye enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de tu repositorio. -Como se describe en [nuestra entrada inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen paralelamente al desarrollo tanto de las propias herramientas como de la forma en que contribuyen al desarrollo del software. +Como se describe en [nuestro artículo en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen paralelamente al desarrollo tanto de herramientas propias, como de la forma en que contribuyen al desarrollo de software. Esperamos que todos los autores que envíen trabajos revelen de forma transparente cómo han contribuido las herramientas de IA generativa a cualquier software enviado para su revisión por pares. Los detalles de como informar este uso se facilitan tanto en la [*Guía para personas autoras*](#authors-guide) como en la [*Guía para el equipo de revisión*](#reviewerguide). From 79a85ddd5c5b60d2dc0aae18f854fde7943c3fe8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:34:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 12/31] Update softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd Co-authored-by: Yanina Bellini Saibene --- softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd index f2cd34e08..c756e9d6f 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ Ten en cuenta que si el paquete no se envía a través de la *branch* principal El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores como para los revisores, pero los revisores no pueden utilizarlas para fundamentar directamente sus decisiones o recomendaciones. Por lo general, los revisores deben solicitar la aprobación de los autores y editores antes de utilizar herramientas de IA generativa, y hacerlo públicamente en el hilo de la revisión. -Al igual que esperamos de los autores, exigimos a los revisores que revelen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. +De la misma manera que les solicitamos a las personas autoras de los paquetes, pedimos a las personas que revisan, que informen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. Pedimos a los revisores que sean lo más transparentes posible. From c70e6c4342953d5c27b9d5889314aec041b33e1b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:34:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 13/31] Update softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd Co-authored-by: Yanina Bellini Saibene --- softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd index f451fb4ba..afad2dcaa 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ Las personas autoras del paquete deben informar cualquier uso de herramientas de > por favor, describe el uso, e incluye enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de tu repositorio. Como se describe en [nuestro artículo en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen paralelamente al desarrollo tanto de herramientas propias, como de la forma en que contribuyen al desarrollo de software. -Esperamos que todos los autores que envíen trabajos revelen de forma transparente cómo han contribuido las herramientas de IA generativa a cualquier software enviado para su revisión por pares. +Esperamos que todas las personas autoras informen de forma transparente y completa, cómo han contribuido las herramientas de IA generativa a cualquier paquete enviado para su revisión por pares. Los detalles de como informar este uso se facilitan tanto en la [*Guía para personas autoras*](#authors-guide) como en la [*Guía para el equipo de revisión*](#reviewerguide). ## Código de conducta {#code-of-conduct} From 2de4038d24a330b61cef38252becedb2618ffa26 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:34:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 14/31] Update softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd Co-authored-by: Yanina Bellini Saibene --- softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd index c756e9d6f..7910c59cf 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores como Por lo general, los revisores deben solicitar la aprobación de los autores y editores antes de utilizar herramientas de IA generativa, y hacerlo públicamente en el hilo de la revisión. De la misma manera que les solicitamos a las personas autoras de los paquetes, pedimos a las personas que revisan, que informen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. -Pedimos a los revisores que sean lo más transparentes posible. +Pedimos a quienes revisan que sean lo más transparentes posible. ### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa From f28a7c248a94a7a27f1fd2ea3b0d7338265ae66e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 11:09:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 15/31] rm duplicated text in en, es. --- softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 8 -------- softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd | 8 -------- 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index ae2c37de5..0cd7a5eab 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -113,14 +113,6 @@ As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. -### Use of generative AI tools - -The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. -Reviewers should generally request approval from submitting authors and editors before using generative AI tools, and do so publicly within the review thread. -As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. -Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. -We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. - ### Feedback on the process {#feedback-on-the-process} We encourage you to ask questions and provide feedback on the review process on https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd index 7910c59cf..ee1e0b835 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd @@ -107,14 +107,6 @@ De la misma manera que les solicitamos a las personas autoras de los paquetes, p Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. Pedimos a quienes revisan que sean lo más transparentes posible. -### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa - -El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores como para los revisores, pero los revisores no pueden utilizarlas para fundamentar directamente sus decisiones o recomendaciones. -Por lo general, los revisores deben solicitar la aprobación de los autores y editores antes de utilizar herramientas de IA generativa, y hacerlo públicamente en el hilo de la revisión. -Al igual que esperamos de los autores, exigimos a los revisores que revelen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. -Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. -Pedimos a los revisores que sean lo más transparentes posible. - ### Devoluciones sobre el proceso {#feedback-on-the-process} Te animamos a que preguntes y opines sobre el proceso de revisión en https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues From f3c41e317305c77435e8fd4cc581f40f176c575a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 12:09:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 16/31] rewrite ai-policy --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index 92f8c0587..4b3412746 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -41,10 +41,13 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to describe how such tools may have been used, and to include links to any relevant aspects of repositories. -A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect, and the more we will expect such tools to have been used _systematically_. -Systematic tool usage includes any approach which transparently and progressively details the contribution of generative AI tools to software production. -Examples of systematic generative AI tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) to [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). -These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document the _process_ of development alongside the software itself. +A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect. +While we currenly have no formal requirements for how tool usage should be documented, examples include tools which produce systematic records of design decisions and histories, such as [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) or [our own experimental 'designlens' tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). +Both of these create an additional `specs/` directory intended to be committed within a repository. +That directory records individual development phases, generally under sequentially-numbered sub-directories, with each containing several documents like "plan.md", "tasks.md", and "report.md" or some equivalent summary of that step. +A `specs/` folder can then contain a comprehensive history of software design, and provide an informative basis for review. +This kind of information can also be automatically extracted from sufficiently detailed Git logs (and our [designlans tool](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens) includes functionality to do just that). +The Git log remains the ultimate source of insight into design history, and a minimal requirement for all submissions remains ## Preparing for Submission {#preparing-for-submission} From 873d91ec7063c2323012a566a030731250502d5a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 12:52:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 17/31] properly rewrite ai-policy --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 27 ++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index 4b3412746..7bfca5839 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -39,15 +39,24 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag ### Use of generative AI tools -The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). -As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to describe how such tools may have been used, and to include links to any relevant aspects of repositories. -A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect. -While we currenly have no formal requirements for how tool usage should be documented, examples include tools which produce systematic records of design decisions and histories, such as [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) or [our own experimental 'designlens' tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). -Both of these create an additional `specs/` directory intended to be committed within a repository. -That directory records individual development phases, generally under sequentially-numbered sub-directories, with each containing several documents like "plan.md", "tasks.md", and "report.md" or some equivalent summary of that step. -A `specs/` folder can then contain a comprehensive history of software design, and provide an informative basis for review. -This kind of information can also be automatically extracted from sufficiently detailed Git logs (and our [designlans tool](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens) includes functionality to do just that). -The Git log remains the ultimate source of insight into design history, and a minimal requirement for all submissions remains +- The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +- As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to describe how such tools may have been used, and to include links to any relevant aspects of repositories. +- A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect. + +#### How to use generative AI tools in preparing software for review + +Software review must be able to focus on design decisions and design history. +Generative AI tools should be used in ways that best enable that. + +- We encourage the use of tools which produce systematic records of design decisions and histories, such as [GitHub's "spec-kit"](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) or [our own experimental 'designlens' tool](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). +- Both of these create an additional `specs/` directory intended to be committed within a repository, and that records individual development phases, generally under sequentially-numbered sub-directories, with each containing several documents like "plan.md", "tasks.md", and "report.md". +- A `specs/` folder can also be produced and maintained by hand, or by directly instructing a generative AI tool, but however produced it should contain a comprehensive history of software design, and provide an informative basis for review. +- For alternative approaches, consider JOSS's requirement for statements of [_Scope and significance_](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#scope-and-significance), and see [recently accepted papers](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/published) for examples of such statements. + +#### The importance of Git logs + +- The Git log remains the ultimate source of insight into design history, and a minimal requirement for all submissions remains an ability to grasp design history through a sufficiently extensive Git log. +- While we place no current minimal limits on Git log size, we do note that [JOSS now requires at least six months of public commit history](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#:~:text=six%20months), and will defer to such requirements when considered necessary. ## Preparing for Submission {#preparing-for-submission} From d17136f5778efe5266364bd899f79fb7a3c45a16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 15:28:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 18/31] revise author's ai usage section again --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 21 +++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index c8d6c3833..68bd635de 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -41,18 +41,15 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag ### Use of generative AI tools - The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). -- As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to describe how such tools may have been used, and to include links to any relevant aspects of repositories. -- A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more documentation we will expect. - -#### How to use generative AI tools in preparing software for review - -Software review must be able to focus on design decisions and design history. -Generative AI tools should be used in ways that best enable that. - -- We encourage the use of tools which produce systematic records of design decisions and histories, such as [GitHub's "spec-kit"](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) or [our own experimental 'designlens' tool](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). -- Both of these create an additional `specs/` directory intended to be committed within a repository, and that records individual development phases, generally under sequentially-numbered sub-directories, with each containing several documents like "plan.md", "tasks.md", and "report.md". -- A `specs/` folder can also be produced and maintained by hand, or by directly instructing a generative AI tool, but however produced it should contain a comprehensive history of software design, and provide an informative basis for review. -- For alternative approaches, consider JOSS's requirement for statements of [_Scope and significance_](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#scope-and-significance), and see [recently accepted papers](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/published) for examples of such statements. +- As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to provide easy-to-find details or links on any usage of generative AI tools in your documentation, like in [this package](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/#robot-use-of-generative-ai), which helpfully includes the following statements: + > For a detailed disclosure of AI usage, please refer to the [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) file. + > For architectural rationale and design tradeoffs, please refer to the [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html) file. + Both files are linked to directly from the main README, and included within the repository itself. +- A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more we will expect tool use to be documented within the software itself. +- We strongly recommend that AI tools be used in systematic ways that record decisions guiding tool processes and outputs within the software itself. + - Examples of systematic generative AI tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) to [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/esignlens). + - These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document decisions and processes of development alongside the software itself. +- For alternative approaches to documenting usage of generative AI tools, consider JOSS's requirement for statements of [_Scope and significance_](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#scope-and-significance), and see [recently accepted papers](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/published) for examples of such statements. #### The importance of Git logs From a6dce2346e58cfbb0b33860e75c12edb9e2c770b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 16:59:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 19/31] one edit in response to comments by @yabellini --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index 68bd635de..db0d0a3a2 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag #### The importance of Git logs -- The Git log remains the ultimate source of insight into design history, and a minimal requirement for all submissions remains an ability to grasp design history through a sufficiently extensive Git log. +- The Git log is an important source of insight into design history, and a minimal requirement for all submissions remains an ability to grasp design history through a sufficiently extensive Git log. - While we place no current minimal limits on Git log size, we do note that [JOSS now requires at least six months of public commit history](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#:~:text=six%20months), and will defer to such requirements when considered necessary. ## Preparing for Submission {#preparing-for-submission} From 11291a4a7c2f320bb02b5b7f5d5bd9dfdcc750da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 11:15:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 20/31] rewirte examples of where ai text can/should go --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index db0d0a3a2..a16a6f377 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -41,13 +41,12 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag ### Use of generative AI tools - The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). -- As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to provide easy-to-find details or links on any usage of generative AI tools in your documentation, like in [this package](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/#robot-use-of-generative-ai), which helpfully includes the following statements: - > For a detailed disclosure of AI usage, please refer to the [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) file. - > For architectural rationale and design tradeoffs, please refer to the [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html) file. - Both files are linked to directly from the main README, and included within the repository itself. -- A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in an rOpenSci submission, the more we will expect tool use to be documented within the software itself. -- We strongly recommend that AI tools be used in systematic ways that record decisions guiding tool processes and outputs within the software itself. - - Examples of systematic generative AI tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) to [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/esignlens). +- As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to provide details on any usage of generative AI tools in package documentation, generally in either README files or contributing guides. + - Extended descriptions of AI tool usage or design decisions may also be held in separate documents, in which case these should be linked directly from README files or contributing guides. + - An example is [the `HydraR` package](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/#robot-use-of-generative-ai), which provides link in the main README to [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) and [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html) files. +- A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in a package, the more we will expect tool use to be documented within the software itself. +- We strongly recommend the use of AI tools that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. + - Examples of such tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) and [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). - These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document decisions and processes of development alongside the software itself. - For alternative approaches to documenting usage of generative AI tools, consider JOSS's requirement for statements of [_Scope and significance_](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#scope-and-significance), and see [recently accepted papers](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/published) for examples of such statements. From 1dfeb36b3a00a6262e8d2b70eda5e81e720ac63b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 11:25:07 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 21/31] rm sentence linking to JOSS's alternative requirements --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index a16a6f377..a97fa2a1b 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag - We strongly recommend the use of AI tools that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. - Examples of such tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) and [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). - These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document decisions and processes of development alongside the software itself. -- For alternative approaches to documenting usage of generative AI tools, consider JOSS's requirement for statements of [_Scope and significance_](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#scope-and-significance), and see [recently accepted papers](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/published) for examples of such statements. #### The importance of Git logs From 72d96d250aa95684235b745fadc3550d8f3a38b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 11:56:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 22/31] 'strong recommend' -> 'encourage'; thanks @maelle --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index a97fa2a1b..c2f3df2e3 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag - Extended descriptions of AI tool usage or design decisions may also be held in separate documents, in which case these should be linked directly from README files or contributing guides. - An example is [the `HydraR` package](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/#robot-use-of-generative-ai), which provides link in the main README to [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) and [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html) files. - A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in a package, the more we will expect tool use to be documented within the software itself. -- We strongly recommend the use of AI tools that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. +- We encourage the use of AI tools that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. - Examples of such tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) and [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). - These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document decisions and processes of development alongside the software itself. From 450d9783c23b91e0aa1bcf036cbacf3236b613f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 12:36:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 23/31] rm obsolete translations We've all agreed to first agree on english version, and then restart translations once that's been approved. --- softwarereview_author.es.Rmd | 9 --------- softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd | 9 --------- softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd | 13 +++---------- softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd | 13 +++---------- softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd | 8 -------- softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd | 16 ---------------- 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd index a5dd372c7..7c185f566 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd @@ -38,15 +38,6 @@ Esta guía condensa el proceso de revisión por pares desde el punto de vista de - El archivo *README* debe esforzarse por explicar las funcionalidades y los objetivos de tu paquete asumiendo poco o ningún conocimiento del dominio. Además, debe aclarar todos los temas técnicos, incluidas las referencias a otros software. - Tu paquete seguirá evolucionando después de la revisión, el capítulo sobre *Evolución de paquetes* [proporciona orientación sobre el tema](#evolution). -### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa - -El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable en los paquetes enviados para revisión por pares, como se describe en [nuestro artículo en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). -Como se indica en [nuestras políticas generales](#policies-ai) exigimos a todas las personas autoras que envíen propuestas que describan cómo se han utilizado dichas herramientas, y que incluyan enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de los repositorios. -Una regla general es que, cuanto más se utilicen herramientas de IA generativa en en un paquete enviado a rOpenSci, más documentación esperaremos recibir. Además esperaremos que dichas herramientas se hayan utilizado *sistemáticamente*. -El uso sistemático de herramientas incluye cualquier enfoque que detalle de forma transparente y progresiva la contribución de las herramientas de IA generativa a la producción de software. -Los ejemplos de herramientas sistemáticas de IA generativa van desde [el "spec-kit" de GitHub para el desarrollo basado en especificaciones](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) a [nuestra propia herramienta experimental para documentar las decisiones de diseño de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). -Todas ellas comparten el patrón común de producir artefactos adicionales que documentan el *proceso* de desarrollo junto con el propio software. - ## Preparación para el envío {#preparing-for-submission} ### Pedir ayuda diff --git a/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd index 4c2e8b531..49e3c9a52 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd @@ -38,15 +38,6 @@ Este guia conciso apresenta o processo de revisão de software por pares, para v - Seu arquivo README deve assegurar-se em explicar a funcionalidade e os objetivos do seu pacote, presumindo que os leitores tenham pouco ou nenhum conhecimento do domínio. Todos os termos técnicos, inclusive as referências a outros softwares, devem ser esclarecidos. - Seu pacote continuará a evoluir após a revisão. O capítulo sobre *Evolução do pacote* [fornece mais orientações sobre este tópico](#evolution). -### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas - -O uso de ferramentas de IA generativas é aceitável em pacotes enviados para revisão por pares, conforme descrito em [nossa publicação inicial no blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). -Conforme declarado em [nossas políticas gerais](#policies-ai) exigimos que todos os autores que enviam artigos descrevam como essas ferramentas podem ter sido usadas e incluam links para quaisquer aspectos relevantes dos repositórios. -Uma regra geral é que, quanto maior for o uso de ferramentas de IA generativas em uma submissão do rOpenSci, mais documentação será esperada e mais esperamos que essas ferramentas tenham sido usadas *sistematicamente*. -O uso sistemático de ferramentas inclui qualquer abordagem que detalhe de forma transparente e progressiva a contribuição das ferramentas de IA generativas para a produção de software. -Exemplos de ferramentas sistemáticas de IA generativa variam de [O "spec-kit" do GitHub para desenvolvimento orientado por especificações](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) ao [nossa própria ferramenta experimental para documentar decisões de design de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). -Todas elas compartilham o padrão comum de produzir artefatos adicionais que documentam as decisões de design de software. *processo* de desenvolvimento juntamente com o próprio software. - ## Preparando para Submissão {#preparing-for-submission} ### Solicitação de ajuda diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd index 7106c590b..fde4574db 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ aliases: - policies.html --- + # Políticas de la Revisión por Pares de Software {#policies} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -260,19 +261,11 @@ Los siguientes recursos pueden ser útiles para quienes investigan, desarrollan - Taylor, J., y Pagliari, C. (2018).Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) -## Uso de herramientas de IA generativa {#policies-ai\]} - -Las personas autoras del paquete deben informar cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa en su paquete, en el momento que realizan el envío. También te pedimos que lo hagas, - -> por favor, describe el uso, e incluye enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de tu repositorio. - -Como se describe en [nuestro artículo en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen paralelamente al desarrollo tanto de herramientas propias, como de la forma en que contribuyen al desarrollo de software. -Esperamos que todas las personas autoras informen de forma transparente y completa, cómo han contribuido las herramientas de IA generativa a cualquier paquete enviado para su revisión por pares. -Los detalles de como informar este uso se facilitan tanto en la [*Guía para personas autoras*](#authors-guide) como en la [*Guía para el equipo de revisión*](#reviewerguide). - ## Código de conducta {#code-of-conduct} La comunidad de rOpenSci es nuestro mejor recurso. Tanto si colaboras habitualmente como si recién llegas, nos esforzamos para que éste lugar sea seguro para ti y te apoyamos en lo que necesites. Tenemos un Código de Conducta que se aplica a todas las personas que participan en la comunidad de rOpenSci, incluidos el equipo y la dirección de rOpenSci y a todos las formas de interacción en línea o en persona. El [Código de Conducta](https://ropensci.org/codigo-de-conducta/) se mantiene en el sitio web de rOpenSci. + + diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd index 2b3d0e445..d19d26749 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ aliases: - policies.html --- + # Políticas de revisão de software por pares {#policies} ```{block, type="summaryblock"} @@ -260,19 +261,11 @@ Os recursos a seguir podem ser úteis para pesquisadores(as), autores(as) de pac - Taylor, J., \& Pagliari, C. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325 [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) -## Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas {#policies-ai\]} - -Os autores devem divulgar qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativas em nossos formulários de envio, onde também pedimos que você o faça, - -> descreva o uso e inclua links para quaisquer aspectos relevantes do seu repositório. - -Conforme descrito em [nossa postagem inicial no blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/) nossas políticas sobre o uso de ferramentas de IA generativa devem se desenvolver juntamente com o desenvolvimento das ferramentas em si, bem como a maneira como elas contribuem para o desenvolvimento de software. -Esperamos que todos os autores que enviam artigos divulguem de forma transparente como as ferramentas de IA generativas podem ter contribuído para qualquer software enviado para revisão por pares. -Os detalhes são fornecidos na seção [*Guia para autores*](#authors-guide) e [*Guia para revisores*](#reviewerguide). - ## Código de Conduta {#code-of-conduct} A comunidade da rOpenSci é o nosso melhor patrimônio. Seja você uma pessoa colaboradora assídua ou recém-chegada, nós nos preocupamos em fazer deste um lugar seguro para você, por isso te apoiamos. Temos um Código de Conduta que se aplica a todas as pessoas que participam da comunidade rOpenSci, incluindo a equipe e a liderança da rOpenSci, e a todos os modos de interação online ou pessoalmente. O [Código de Conduta](https://ropensci.org/pt/c%C3%B3digo-de-conduta/) é mantido no site da rOpenSci. + + diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd index 6b33b875e..38dcfc027 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd @@ -102,14 +102,6 @@ Esto Ten en cuenta que si el paquete no se envía a través de la *branch* principal o por defecto, tienes que cambiar a la *branch* usada para enviar antes de comenzar tu revisión. -### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa - -El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores como para los revisores, pero los revisores no pueden utilizarlas para fundamentar directamente sus decisiones o recomendaciones. -Por lo general, los revisores deben solicitar la aprobación de los autores y editores antes de utilizar herramientas de IA generativa, y hacerlo públicamente en el hilo de la revisión. -De la misma manera que les solicitamos a las personas autoras de los paquetes, pedimos a las personas que revisan, que informen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. -Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable son la generación de una visión general de la funcionalidad del paquete, o la iteración a través de un historial Git para proporcionar una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. -Pedimos a quienes revisan que sean lo más transparentes posible. - ### Devoluciones sobre el proceso {#feedback-on-the-process} Te animamos a que preguntes y opines sobre el proceso de revisión en https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd index 969363657..658870eb4 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd @@ -101,22 +101,6 @@ Como resultado: Observe que, se o pacote não for enviado por meio da *branch* padrão/principal, você precisará mudar para a *branch* enviada antes de iniciar a revisão. -### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas - -O uso de ferramentas de IA generativas é aceitável tanto para os autores que enviam quanto para os revisores, mas elas não podem ser usadas pelos revisores para informar diretamente quaisquer decisões ou recomendações. -Em geral, os revisores devem solicitar a aprovação dos autores e editores que enviam os artigos antes de usar ferramentas de IA generativas, e fazê-lo publicamente no tópico de revisão. -Assim como esperamos dos autores, exigimos que os revisores divulguem qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativas com o máximo de detalhes possível. -Exemplos de uso aceitável incluem a geração de uma visão geral da funcionalidade do pacote ou a iteração em um histórico do Git para fornecer uma visão geral das decisões de desenvolvimento. -Pedimos aos revisores que sejam o mais transparentes possível. - -### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativas - -O uso de ferramentas de IA generativas é aceitável tanto para autores que enviam quanto para revisores, mas elas não podem ser usadas pelos revisores para informar diretamente quaisquer decisões ou recomendações. -Em geral, os revisores devem solicitar a aprovação dos autores e editores que enviam os artigos antes de usar ferramentas de IA generativas, e fazê-lo publicamente no tópico de revisão. -Assim como esperamos dos autores, exigimos que os revisores divulguem qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativas com o máximo de detalhes possível. -Exemplos de uso aceitável incluem a geração de uma visão geral da funcionalidade do pacote ou a iteração em um histórico do Git para fornecer uma visão geral das decisões de desenvolvimento. -Pedimos aos revisores que sejam o mais transparentes possível. - ### Comentários sobre o processo {#feedback-on-the-process} Incentivamos você a fazer perguntas e fornecer feedbacks sobre o processo de revisão em https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues From 5245c08074a6f79aeb705ca1f74d9d9d7f8582b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 11:30:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 24/31] 'encourage' -> 'suggest' --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index c2f3df2e3..1d3dd9068 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag - Extended descriptions of AI tool usage or design decisions may also be held in separate documents, in which case these should be linked directly from README files or contributing guides. - An example is [the `HydraR` package](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/#robot-use-of-generative-ai), which provides link in the main README to [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) and [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html) files. - A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in a package, the more we will expect tool use to be documented within the software itself. -- We encourage the use of AI tools that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. +- We suggest using AI tools in ways that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. - Examples of such tools range from [GitHub's "spec-kit" for specification-driven development](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) and [our own experimental tool to document software design decisions](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). - These all share the common pattern of producing additional artefacts which document decisions and processes of development alongside the software itself. From 2ca572b36a12ab144685d8832d6595ed4a450691 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mark padgham Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:33:10 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 25/31] Update softwarereview_author.Rmd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Co-authored-by: Maëlle Salmon --- softwarereview_author.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index 1d3dd9068..189124643 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag - The use of generative AI tools is acceptable in packages submitted for peer review, as described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). - As stated in [our general policies](#policies-ai), we require all submitting authors to provide details on any usage of generative AI tools in package documentation, generally in either README files or contributing guides. - - Extended descriptions of AI tool usage or design decisions may also be held in separate documents, in which case these should be linked directly from README files or contributing guides. + - Extended descriptions of AI tool usage or design decisions may also be held in separate documents, in which case these should be linked directly from the README or contributing guide. - An example is [the `HydraR` package](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/#robot-use-of-generative-ai), which provides link in the main README to [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) and [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html) files. - A very general rule-of-thumb is the greater the use of generative AI tools in a package, the more we will expect tool use to be documented within the software itself. - We suggest using AI tools in ways that record decisions guiding development processes and outputs within the software itself. From 3451ad203c0d030644e47317f1efed04aae70e1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mpadge Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 11:38:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 26/31] rm redundant sentence about reviewers and ai tools --- softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index de20c8ac2..5effa3d67 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -110,8 +110,7 @@ Note that if the package is not submitted via the default/main branch, you need ### Use of generative AI tools -The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but such may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. -Reviewers should generally request approval from submitting authors and editors before using generative AI tools, and do so publicly within the review thread. +The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but these tools may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. From ed9cc0b1418b5cdb8ccb027c032f30dd81093e11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 15:33:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 27/31] add git guidance and news item (#1041) * add git guidance and news item * aspirational! --- booknews.Rmd | 2 ++ pkg_building.Rmd | 6 ++++++ softwarereview_author.Rmd | 2 +- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/booknews.Rmd b/booknews.Rmd index 46fc64a18..12b23e557 100644 --- a/booknews.Rmd +++ b/booknews.Rmd @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ ## Dev version +- 2026-09-07, add recommendations and resources about Git commits (#1006). +- 2026-09-07, add first AI policies (#1006). - 2026-08-24, mention `NEWS.md` file in packaging guide (#1027). - 2026-08-24, fix lifecycle badge (`@joelnitta`, #1030). - 2026-06-26, explicitely state that authors should not change their package while it is under review (#1022). diff --git a/pkg_building.Rmd b/pkg_building.Rmd index 26f830b16..92ad7369a 100644 --- a/pkg_building.Rmd +++ b/pkg_building.Rmd @@ -557,6 +557,12 @@ For how to update your DESCRIPTION file, see the [R packages book](https://r-pkg - Your package source files have to be under version control, more specifically tracked with [Git](https://happygitwithr.com/). You might find the [gert package](https://docs.ropensci.org/gert/) relevant, as well as some of [usethis Git/GitHub related functionality](https://usethis.r-lib.org/reference/index.html#section-git-and-github); you can however use git as you want. +- Small, informative Git commits allow to better understand and debug a project. Do not group too many unrelated changes in a single commit; avoid using meaningless commit messages such as "update" or "commit". We do not require a clean Git history, but we highly recommend making an effort. Useful resources: + - ["Write Better Commits, Build Better Projects"](https://github.blog/developer-skills/github/write-better-commits-build-better-projects/); + - ["Why you need small, informative Git commits"](https://masalmon.eu/2024/06/03/small-commits/); + - ["Hack your way to a good Git history"](https://masalmon.eu/2024/06/11/rewrite-git-history/); + - [The saperlipopette R package for practicing Git](https://docs.ropensci.org/saperlipopette/). + - The default branch name should not be `master`, as this can be offensive to some people. Refer to the [statement of the Git project and the Software Freedom Conservancy](https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/) for more context. It is general practice to name a default branch `main`, although other names may also be used. See the tidyverse blog post ["Renaming the default branch"](https://www.tidyverse.org/blog/2021/10/renaming-default-branch/) to learn about usethis functionality to help with renaming default branches. - Make sure to list "scrap" such as `.DS_Store` files in .gitignore. diff --git a/softwarereview_author.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.Rmd index 189124643..6f71a1ada 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.Rmd @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ This concise guide presents the software peer review process for you as a packag #### The importance of Git logs -- The Git log is an important source of insight into design history, and a minimal requirement for all submissions remains an ability to grasp design history through a sufficiently extensive Git log. +- The Git log is an important source of insight into design history. Refer to our [version control](#version-control) guidance, which contains resources about creating informative Git logs. - While we place no current minimal limits on Git log size, we do note that [JOSS now requires at least six months of public commit history](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#:~:text=six%20months), and will defer to such requirements when considered necessary. ## Preparing for Submission {#preparing-for-submission} From 20903ff4ca26e27709669760a1c58a127236190f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mark padgham Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 13:56:15 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 28/31] Update softwarereview_policies.Rmd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Co-authored-by: Maëlle Salmon --- softwarereview_policies.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd index 6885dc521..afab09d11 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in our submission forms, wh > please describe usage, and include links to any relevant aspects of your repository. -As described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/), our policies on the use of generative AI tools are expected to develop alongside development in both tools themselves, as well as the way their contribute to software development. +As described in [our initial blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/), our policies on the use of generative AI tools are expected to develop alongside development in tools themselves, as well as the way their contribute to software development. We expect all submitting authors to transparently disclose how generative AI tools may have contributed to any software submitted for peer review. Details are provided in both the [_Guide for Authors_](#authors-guide) and [_Guide for Reviewers_](#reviewerguide). From 57eb98e3faa44446441b159477825322e231fd25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mark padgham Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 07:40:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 29/31] Update softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Co-authored-by: Maëlle Salmon --- softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd index 5effa3d67..21b1b4616 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Note that if the package is not submitted via the default/main branch, you need ### Use of generative AI tools -The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but these tools may not be used by reviewers to directly inform any decisions or recommendations. +The use of generative AI tools is acceptable both for submitting authors and reviewers, but these tools may not be used by reviewers to inform any decisions or recommendations without human supervision. As with our expectations for authors, we require reviewers to disclose any usage of generative AI tools with as much detail as possible. Examples of acceptable usage include generating an overview of package functionality, or iterating through a Git history to provide an overview of development decisions. We ask reviewers to be as transparent as possible. From c21c1dfbabbe61ba7ac97ae131b420e2600bcc76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 14:56:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 30/31] fix cross-ref --- softwarereview_policies.Rmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd index afab09d11..69564856f 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.Rmd @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ The following resources may be helpful for researchers, package authors, editors - Taylor, J., \& Pagliari, C. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) -## Use of generative AI tools {#policies-ai]} +## Use of generative AI tools {#policies-ai} Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in our submission forms, where we also ask you to, From 787621d98084e260bc79038a867d08773b58d9e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ma=C3=ABlle=20Salmon?= Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 16:12:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 31/31] translate --- pkg_building.es.Rmd | 7 +++++++ pkg_building.pt.Rmd | 8 ++++++++ softwarereview_author.es.Rmd | 11 +++++++++++ softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd | 11 +++++++++++ softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd | 10 ++++++++++ softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd | 10 ++++++++++ softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd | 11 +++++++++++ softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd | 12 ++++++++++++ 8 files changed, 80 insertions(+) diff --git a/pkg_building.es.Rmd b/pkg_building.es.Rmd index 96c92f7dc..a57a425fb 100644 --- a/pkg_building.es.Rmd +++ b/pkg_building.es.Rmd @@ -555,6 +555,13 @@ Para saber cómo actualizar tu archivo DESCRIPTION, consulta el libro [*R packag - Los archivos fuente de tu paquete tienen que estar bajo control de versiones, más concretamente versionados con [Git](https://happygitwithr.com/). Puede que el paquete [gert](https://docs.ropensci.org/gert/) te resulte útil, así como algunas de las [funciones de usethis relacionadas con Git/GitHub](https://usethis.r-lib.org/reference/index.html#section-git-and-github); sin embargo, puedes utilizar git como quieras. + +- Las confirmaciones de Git breves e informativas permiten comprender y depurar mejor un proyecto. No agrupes demasiados cambios no relacionados en una sola confirmación; evita usar mensajes de confirmación sin sentido, como «actualización» o «confirmación». No exigimos un historial de Git impecable, pero recomendamos encarecidamente que te esfuerces por lograrlo. Recursos útiles: + - ["Escribe mejores confirmaciones, crea mejores proyectos"](https://github.blog/developer-skills/github/write-better-commits-build-better-projects/); + - ["Por qué necesitas confirmaciones de Git pequeñas e informativas"](https://masalmon.eu/2024/06/03/small-commits/); + - ["Cómo lograr un buen historial de Git"](https://masalmon.eu/2024/06/11/rewrite-git-history/); + - [El paquete R saperlipopette para practicar con Git](https://docs.ropensci.org/saperlipopette/). + - El nombre de rama por defecto no debe ser `master` ya que puede resultar ofensivo para algunas personas. Consulta la [declaración del proyecto Git y de la Software Freedom Conservancy](https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/) para más contexto. Es práctica general nombrar a la rama por defecto `main` aunque también pueden utilizarse otros nombres. Consulta el artículo de tidyverse ["Cambiar el nombre de la rama por defecto"](https://www.tidyverse.org/blog/2021/10/renaming-default-branch/) para aprender a utilizar esta funcionalidad para renombrar las ramas por defecto. - Asegúrate de listar archivos innecesarios, como `.DS_Store`, en .gitignore. diff --git a/pkg_building.pt.Rmd b/pkg_building.pt.Rmd index 35746ff74..3322fb28c 100644 --- a/pkg_building.pt.Rmd +++ b/pkg_building.pt.Rmd @@ -482,6 +482,14 @@ a sustentabilidade de longo prazo do seu pacote. Isso também - Os arquivos de origem do seu pacote devem estar sob controle de versão, mais especificamente rastreados com [Git](https://happygitwithr.com/). Você pode achar o [pacote gert](https://docs.ropensci.org/gert/) relevante, bem como algumas das funções do [pacote usethis relacionadas ao Git/GitHub](https://usethis.r-lib.org/reference/index.html#section-git-and-github); no entanto, você pode usar o git como quiser. + +- Commits pequenos e informativos no Git permitem compreender melhor e depurar um projeto. Não agrupe muitas alterações não relacionadas em um único commit; evite usar mensagens de commit sem sentido, como “atualização” ou “commit”. Não exigimos um histórico de Git impecável, mas recomendamos fortemente que você se esforce para mantê-lo organizado. Recursos úteis: + - [“Escreva commits melhores, construa projetos melhores”](https://github.blog/developer-skills/github/write-better-commits-build-better-projects/); + - [“Por que você precisa de commits pequenos e informativos no Git”](https://masalmon.eu/2024/06/03/small-commits/); + - [“Descubra seu jeito de criar um bom histórico do Git”](https://masalmon.eu/2024/06/11/rewrite-git-history/); + - [O pacote R saperlipopette para praticar o uso do Git](https://docs.ropensci.org/saperlipopette/). + + - O nome da ramificação (*branch*) padrão não deve ser `master`, pois isso pode ser ofensivo para algumas pessoas. Consulte a seção [do projeto Git e da Software Freedom Conservancy](https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/) para obter mais contexto. É uma prática geral nomear uma ramificação padrão `main`, embora outros nomes também possam ser usados. Consulte a postagem do blog do tidyverse ["Renomeando a ramificação padrão"](https://www.tidyverse.org/blog/2021/10/renaming-default-branch/) para saber mais sobre como usar essa funcionalidade para ajudar a renomear as ramificações padrão. - Certifique-se de listar arquivos desnecessários, como `.DS_Store`, no arquivo .gitignore. Você pode achar a função [`usethis::git_vaccinate()`](https://usethis.r-lib.org/reference/git_vaccinate.html) e o [pacote gitignore](https://docs.ropensci.org/gitignore/) relevantes. diff --git a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd index 7c185f566..b0d8b7505 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.es.Rmd @@ -31,6 +31,17 @@ Esta guía condensa el proceso de revisión por pares desde el punto de vista de - No debes hacer ningún cambio en tu paquete mientras esté en proceso de revisión, para que todas las personas que lo revisan puedan evaluar el mismo software. ¡No envíes tu paquete hasta que esté en una versión estable! - Tu paquete seguirá evolucionando después de la revisión, el capítulo sobre *Evolución de paquetes* [proporciona orientación sobre el tema](#evolution). +### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa + +- El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable en los paquetes enviados para revisión por pares, tal como se describe en [nuestra publicación inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +- Tal como se indica en [nuestras políticas generales](#policies-ai), exigimos a todos los autores que envíen trabajos que proporcionen detalles sobre cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa en la documentación del paquete, generalmente en los archivos README o en las guías de contribución. + - Las descripciones detalladas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA o las decisiones de diseño también pueden incluirse en documentos separados; en ese caso, deben enlazarse directamente desde el archivo README o la guía de contribución. + - Un ejemplo es [el paquete `HydraR`](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/# uso-de-ia-generativa-por-robots), que incluye un enlace en el archivo README principal a los archivos [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) y [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html). +- Una regla general muy básica es que, cuanto mayor sea el uso de herramientas de IA generativa en un paquete, más esperaremos que el uso de dichas herramientas esté documentado dentro del propio software. +- Sugerimos utilizar las herramientas de IA de manera que se registren las decisiones que guían los procesos de desarrollo y los resultados dentro del propio software. + - Entre los ejemplos de este tipo de herramientas se encuentran desde [el «spec-kit» de GitHub para el desarrollo basado en especificaciones](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) hasta [nuestra propia herramienta experimental para documentar las decisiones de diseño de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). + - Todas ellas comparten el patrón común de generar artefactos adicionales que documentan las decisiones y los procesos de desarrollo junto con el software en sí. + ### Documentación - Para cualquier envío o consulta previa al envío, el *README* de tu paquete debería proporcionar suficiente información sobre el mismo (objetivos, uso, paquetes similares) para que quienes revisan el paquete puedan evaluar su alcance sin tener que instalarlo. Mejor aún, crea un sitio web de pkgdown para que puedan evaluar las funcionalidads detalladamente en línea. diff --git a/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd index 49e3c9a52..c3851eb6b 100644 --- a/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_author.pt.Rmd @@ -31,6 +31,17 @@ Este guia conciso apresenta o processo de revisão de software por pares, para v - Você não deve fazer nenhuma alteração no seu pacote enquanto ele estiver em análise, para que todas as pessoas revisoras estejam avaliando o mesmo software. Não envie seu pacote até que ele esteja em uma versão estável! - Seu pacote continuará a evoluir após a revisão. O capítulo sobre *Evolução do pacote* [fornece mais orientações sobre este tópico](#evolution). +### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativa + +- O uso de ferramentas de IA generativa é aceitável em pacotes enviados para revisão por pares, conforme descrito em [nossa postagem inicial no blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/). +- Conforme estabelecido em [nossas políticas gerais](#policies-ai), exigimos que todos os autores que enviam trabalhos forneçam detalhes sobre qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativa na documentação do pacote, geralmente em arquivos README ou em guias de contribuição. + - Descrições mais detalhadas sobre o uso de ferramentas de IA ou decisões de projeto também podem ser apresentadas em documentos separados; nesse caso, devem ser vinculadas diretamente a partir do arquivo README ou do guia de contribuição. + - Um exemplo é [o pacote `HydraR`](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/# robot-use-of-generative-ai), que fornece um link no README principal para os arquivos [agents.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/agents.html) e [DESIGN.md](https://apaf-bioinformatics.github.io/HydraR/DESIGN.html). +- Uma regra geral é que, quanto maior for o uso de ferramentas de IA generativa em um pacote, mais esperaremos que o uso dessas ferramentas seja documentado dentro do próprio software. +- Sugerimos o uso de ferramentas de IA de forma que as decisões que orientam os processos de desenvolvimento e os resultados sejam registradas dentro do próprio software. + - Exemplos dessas ferramentas vão desde o [“spec-kit” do GitHub para desenvolvimento orientado por especificações](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) até [nossa própria ferramenta experimental para documentar decisões de projeto de software](https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/designlens). + - Todas elas compartilham o padrão comum de produzir artefatos adicionais que documentam as decisões e os processos de desenvolvimento juntamente com o próprio software. + ### Documentação - Para qualquer envio ou consulta de pré-submissão, o README do seu pacote deve fornecer informações suficientes sobre o pacote (objetivos, uso, pacotes semelhantes) para que os editores avaliem seu escopo sem precisar instalar o pacote. Melhor ainda, crie um website pkgdown para permitir uma avaliação mais detalhada da funcionalidade online. diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd index fde4574db..6134e0923 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.es.Rmd @@ -261,6 +261,16 @@ Los siguientes recursos pueden ser útiles para quienes investigan, desarrollan - Taylor, J., y Pagliari, C. (2018).Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) +## Uso de herramientas de IA generativa {#policies-ai} + +Los autores deben declarar cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa en nuestros formularios de envío, donde también les pedimos que: + +> describan el uso e incluyan enlaces a cualquier aspecto relevante de su repositorio. + +Tal como se describe en [nuestra publicación inicial en el blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/), se espera que nuestras políticas sobre el uso de herramientas de IA generativa evolucionen a la par del desarrollo de las propias herramientas, así como de la forma en que estas contribuyen al desarrollo de software. +Esperamos que todos los autores que envíen trabajos revelen de manera transparente cómo las herramientas de IA generativa pueden haber contribuido a cualquier software enviado para revisión por pares. +Los detalles se proporcionan tanto en la [_Guía para autores_](#authors-guide) como en la [_Guía para revisores_](#reviewerguide). + ## Código de conducta {#code-of-conduct} La comunidad de rOpenSci es nuestro mejor recurso. diff --git a/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd index d19d26749..e794784eb 100644 --- a/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_policies.pt.Rmd @@ -261,6 +261,16 @@ Os recursos a seguir podem ser úteis para pesquisadores(as), autores(as) de pac - Taylor, J., \& Pagliari, C. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1--39. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559) - Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313--325 [https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5) +## Uso de ferramentas de IA generativa {#policies-ai} + +Os autores devem declarar qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativa em nossos formulários de submissão, nos quais também solicitamos que: + +> descrevam o uso e incluam links para quaisquer aspectos relevantes do seu repositório. + +Conforme descrito em [nossa postagem inicial no blog](https://ropensci.org/blog/2026/02/26/ropensci-ai-policy/), espera-se que nossas políticas sobre o uso de ferramentas de IA generativa evoluam paralelamente ao desenvolvimento dessas próprias ferramentas, bem como à forma como elas contribuem para o desenvolvimento de software. +Esperamos que todos os autores que enviam trabalhos divulguem de forma transparente como as ferramentas de IA generativa podem ter contribuído para qualquer software submetido à revisão por pares. +Os detalhes estão disponíveis tanto no [_Guia para Autores_](#authors-guide) quanto no [_Guia para Revisores_](#reviewerguide). + ## Código de Conduta {#code-of-conduct} A comunidade da rOpenSci é o nosso melhor patrimônio. diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd index 38dcfc027..0ccfb08bc 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.es.Rmd @@ -102,6 +102,17 @@ Esto Ten en cuenta que si el paquete no se envía a través de la *branch* principal o por defecto, tienes que cambiar a la *branch* usada para enviar antes de comenzar tu revisión. + + +### Uso de herramientas de IA generativa + + +El uso de herramientas de IA generativa es aceptable tanto para los autores que envían sus trabajos como para los revisores; sin embargo, los revisores no pueden utilizar estas herramientas para fundamentar ninguna decisión o recomendación sin supervisión humana. + +Al igual que con nuestras expectativas para los autores, exigimos a los revisores que revelen cualquier uso de herramientas de IA generativa con el mayor detalle posible. +Algunos ejemplos de uso aceptable incluyen la generación de una descripción general de la funcionalidad del paquete o el análisis del historial de Git para ofrecer una visión general de las decisiones de desarrollo. +Pedimos a los revisores que sean lo más transparentes posible. + ### Devoluciones sobre el proceso {#feedback-on-the-process} Te animamos a que preguntes y opines sobre el proceso de revisión en https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues diff --git a/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd b/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd index 658870eb4..8fd1f55d2 100644 --- a/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd +++ b/softwarereview_reviewer.pt.Rmd @@ -101,6 +101,18 @@ Como resultado: Observe que, se o pacote não for enviado por meio da *branch* padrão/principal, você precisará mudar para a *branch* enviada antes de iniciar a revisão. + + +### Uso de ferramentas de IA generativa + + +O uso de ferramentas de IA generativa é aceitável tanto para autores quanto para revisores; no entanto, essas ferramentas não podem ser utilizadas pelos revisores para fundamentar quaisquer decisões ou recomendações sem supervisão humana. + +Assim como esperamos dos autores, exigimos que os revisores divulguem qualquer uso de ferramentas de IA generativa com o máximo de detalhes possível. +Exemplos de uso aceitável incluem a geração de uma visão geral das funcionalidades de um pacote ou a análise do histórico do Git para fornecer uma visão geral das decisões de desenvolvimento. +Pedimos aos revisores que sejam o mais transparentes possível. + + ### Comentários sobre o processo {#feedback-on-the-process} Incentivamos você a fazer perguntas e fornecer feedbacks sobre o processo de revisão em https://github.com/ropensci/software-review-meta/issues