Points 33-35 handled in answer to reviewers

This commit only modifies "peer-review/1-answer.txt", giving
answers to Reviewer 4; these mostly take into account David's
email list of proposed answers. No changes are done to
"paper.tex".

1 files changed, 27 insertions, 14 deletions

diff --git a/peer-review/1-answer.txt b/peer-review/1-answer.txt
index da92bd3..5e612f8 100644
--- a/peer-review/1-answer.txt
+++ b/peer-review/1-answer.txt
@@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ either using Docker (or VMs) or using the Windows Subsystem for Linux.
 32. [Reviewer 3] Important references are missing; more references are
     needed
 
-ANSWER: Two comprehensive Appendices have beed added to address this issue.
+ANSWER: Two comprehensive Appendices have been added to address this issue.
 
 ------------------------------
 
@@ -633,13 +633,26 @@ ANSWER: Two comprehensive Appendices have beed added to address this issue.
     them, give some examples of why they are important, and address
     potential missing criteria.
 
-for example the referee already points to "how code is written" as a
-criteria (for example for threading or floating point errors), or
-"performance".
-
-#################################
-ANSWER:
-#################################
+ANSWER: Our selection of the criteria and their importance are
+questions of the philosophy of science: "what is good science? what
+should reproducibility aim for?" We feel that completeness;
+modularity; minimal complexity; scalability; verifiability of inputs
+and outputs; recording of the project history; linking of narrative
+to analysis; and the right to use, modify, and redistribute
+scientific software in original or modified form; constitute a set
+of criteria that should uncontroversially be seen as "important"
+from a wide range of ethical, social, political, and economic
+perspectives.  An exception is probably the issue of proprietary
+versus free software (criterion 8), on which debate is far from
+closed.
+
+Within the constraints of space (the limit is 6500 words), we don't
+see how we could add more discussion of the history of our choice of
+criteria or more anecdotal examples of their relevance.
+
+We do discuss some alternatives lists of criteria in Appendix B.A,
+without debating the wider perspective of which criteria are the
+most desirable.
 
 ------------------------------
 
@@ -650,9 +663,8 @@ ANSWER:
 34. [Reviewer 4] Clarify the discussion of challenges to adoption and make
     it clearer which tradeoffs are important to practitioners.
 
-##########################
-ANSWER:
-##########################
+ANSWER: We discuss many of these challenges and caveats in the Discussion
+Section (V), within the existing word limit.
 
 ------------------------------
 
@@ -663,9 +675,10 @@ ANSWER:
 35. [Reviewer 4] Be clearer about which sorts of research workflow are best
     suited to this approach.
 
-################################
-ANSWER:
-################################
+ANSWER: Maneage is flexible enough to enable a wide range of
+workflows to be implemented. This is done by leveraging the
+highly modular and flexible nature of Makefiles run via 'Make'.
+
 
 ------------------------------