rOpenSci and JOSS submission

[benmarwick]

Following up on #75, here's the packaging guide, and review template for rOpenSci so we can pre-review ourselves. I've checked off some of the items that I think we have already satisfied, and initialled those criteria:

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
• As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README. BM
• Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README. BM
• Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• Function Documentation: for all exported functions in R help
• Examples for all exported functions in R Help that run successfully locally
• Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R). BM

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Functionality

• Installation: Installation succeeds as documented. BM
• Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package. BM
  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

Final approval (post-review)

• The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

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.

---