diff options
author | Boud Roukema <boud@cosmo.torun.pl> | 2020-05-01 05:25:55 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Boud Roukema <boud@cosmo.torun.pl> | 2020-05-01 05:25:55 +0200 |
commit | 1c2061404db9209758f6bb066855decb393ea06d (patch) | |
tree | a3c8006e214119225d54049d9f103e36c206de75 /reproduce/analysis/config | |
parent | 2e525d9a1e1bd6829fb97ca2f1e39309852c179c (diff) |
Several minor edits to the title + abstract
Most are minor English tidying, e.g.
* spelling: achieving
* archivable - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/archivable
* `i.e.` does not look good in an abstract;
* `when` didn't sound quite right;
Comment: we no longer state one of the most interesting aspects
of Maneage - producing the draft paper that is submittable for
peer review in a way that makes it natural for the authors to
achieve automatic consistency between the calculations/analysis
and the values in the paper. But this is hard to describe in a
compact way without disrupting the overall argument of the
abstract, so it's a bit of a pity, but people will learn about it
anyway from the body of the article (or from trying out the
package!) `Peer-review verification` does not directly state
producing a pdf.
Related to this absence of talking about reproducing the *paper*,
not just the calculations, I suggest dropping `, with snapshot
\projectversion` from the abstract initially sent to the journal
(they can't stop us updating it afterwards), because without the
context of explaining that the paper itself is produced from the
package, it's not clear what the snapshot means - a snapshot of
the abstract? In the `real` paper, it makes sense, because the
reader will have access to the rest of the paper.
Diffstat (limited to 'reproduce/analysis/config')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions