List of answers - minor copyedit

This commit does a minor copyedit of "peer-review/1-answer.txt",
mostly just at the top, plus some hashes to highlight an
unanswered concern; and removes the @ symbols (and full stops)
from email addresses in the peer review email in order to reduce
our feeding of email harvesters (spiders that collect email addresses
for spammers).

2 files changed, 21 insertions, 18 deletions

diff --git a/peer-review/1-answer.txt b/peer-review/1-answer.txt
index 6600d2b..9c6bbd9 100644
--- a/peer-review/1-answer.txt
+++ b/peer-review/1-answer.txt
@@ -7,16 +7,17 @@ already done a very comprehensive review of the tools (as you may notice
 from the Git repository[1]). However, the CiSE Author Information
 explicitly states: "The introduction should provide a modicum of background
 in one or two paragraphs, but should not attempt to give a literature
-review". This is also practiced in previously published papers at CiSE and
-is in line with the very limited word-count and maximum of 12 references to
+review". This is the usual practice in previously published papers at CiSE and
+is in line with the very limited word count and maximum of 12 references to
 be used in bibliography.
 
-We were also eager to get that extensive review out (which took a lot of
-time, and most of the tools were actually run and tested). Hence we
-discussed this privately with the editors and this solution was agreed
-upon: we include that extended review as appendices on the arXiv[2] and
-Zenodo[3] pre-prints of this paper and mention those publicly available
-appendices in the submitted paper for an interested reader to followup.
+We agree with the need for this extensive review to be on the public record
+(creating the review took a lot of time and effort; most of the tools were run and
+tested). We discussed this with the editors and the following
+solution was agreed upon: we include the extended review as a set of appendices in
+the arXiv[2] and Zenodo[3] pre-prints of this paper and mention these
+publicly available appendices in the submitted paper so that any interested
+reader can easily access them.
 
 [1] https://gitlab.com/makhlaghi/maneage-paper/-/blob/master/tex/src/paper-long.tex#L1579
 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018
@@ -31,7 +32,9 @@ appendices in the submitted paper for an interested reader to followup.
 2.  [Associate Editor] There are general concerns about the paper
     lacking focus
 
+###########################
 ANSWER:
+###########################
 
 ------------------------------
 
@@ -43,8 +46,8 @@ ANSWER:
     (e.g. longevity).
 
 ANSWER: It has now been clearly defined in the first paragraph of Section
-II. With this definition, the main argument of the paper is much more clear,
-thank you (and the referees for highlighting this).
+II. With this definition, the main argument of the paper is much clearer,
+thank you (and thank you to the referees for highlighting this).
 
 ------------------------------
 
@@ -55,7 +58,7 @@ thank you (and the referees for highlighting this).
 4.  [Associate Editor] The discussion of tools could benefit from some
     categorization to characterize their longevity.
 
-ANSWER: The longevity of the general tools reviewed in Section II are now
+ANSWER: The longevity of the general tools reviewed in Section II is now
 mentioned immediately after each (highlighted in green).
 
 ------------------------------
diff --git a/peer-review/1-review.txt b/peer-review/1-review.txt
index 6c72f29..16e227b 100644
--- a/peer-review/1-review.txt
+++ b/peer-review/1-review.txt
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
-From: cise@computer.org
-To: mohammad@akhlaghi.org,
-    infantesainz@gmail.com,
-    boud@astro.uni.torun.pl,
-    david.valls-gabaud@observatoiredeparis.psl.eu,
-    rbaena@iac.es
+From: cise computer org
+To: mohammad akhlaghi org,
+    infantesainz gmail com,
+    boud astro uni torun pl,
+    david valls-gabaud observatoiredeparis psl eu,
+    rbaena iac es
 Received: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:28:21 -0400
 Subject: Computing in Science and Engineering, CiSESI-2020-06-0048
          major revision required
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ before it can be considered for a second review.
 
 Your revision is due before 22-Oct-2020. Please note that if your paper was
 submitted to a special issue, this due date may be different. Contact the
-peer review administrator, Ms. Jessica Ingle, at cise@computer.org if you
+peer review administrator, Ms. Jessica Ingle, at cise computer.org if you
 have questions.
 
 The reviewer and editor comments are attached below for your