Paper detail

An Empirical Analysis of the R Package Ecosystem

In this research, we present a comprehensive, longitudinal empirical summary of the R package ecosystem, including not just CRAN, but also Bioconductor and GitHub. We analyze more than 25,000 packages, 150,000 releases, and 15 million files across two decades, providing comprehensive counts and trends for common metrics across packages, releases, authors, licenses, and other important metadata. We find that the historical growth of the ecosystem has been robust under all measures, with a compound annual growth rate of 29% for active packages, 28% for new releases, and 26% for active maintainers. As with many similar social systems, we find a number of highly right-skewed distributions with practical implications, including the distribution of releases per package, packages and releases per author or maintainer, package and maintainer dependency in-degree, and size per package and release. For example, the top five packages are imported by nearly 25% of all packages, and the top ten maintainers support packages that are imported by over half of all packages. We also highlight the dynamic nature of the ecosystem, recording both dramatic acceleration and notable deceleration in the growth of R. From a licensing perspective, we find a notable majority of packages are distributed under copyleft licensing or omit licensing information entirely. The data, methods, and calculations herein provide an anchor for public discourse and industry decisions related to R and CRAN, serving as a foundation for future research on the R software ecosystem and "data science" more broadly.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.