aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/reproduce/software/config
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorBoud Roukema <boud@cosmo.torun.pl>2020-05-01 02:20:50 +0100
committerMohammad Akhlaghi <mohammad@akhlaghi.org>2020-05-01 03:25:08 +0100
commit8f14213f53ce59a7bc13a8018b5b937f53976fda (patch)
tree03b722b15ae2389e6f30b7b6e12947ba6a18daf6 /reproduce/software/config
parent842fd2f0f6b17ce040e6c60dff6b9eb4db9e318e (diff)
Abstract re-organized to be more research-oriented
To make this a research article, we either have to present it as a theoretical advance, or as an empirical advance. An empirical research result would be something like doing a survey of users and getting statistics of their success/failure in using the system, and of whether their experience is consistent with the claimed properties and principles of Maneage (e.g. success/failure in creating paper.pdf as expected? was the user's system POSIX? did the user do the install with non-root privileges? was this a with-network or without-network ./project configure ?) This is doable, but would require a bit of extra work that we are not necessarily motivated to do or have the time to do right now. I think it's possible to present Maneage as a theoretical advance, but it has to be worded properly. Maneage is a tool, but it's a tool that satisfies what we can reasonably present as a unique theoretical proposal. Here's my proposed rewrite. I've aimed at minimum word length. I've also included (commented out) keywords for a structured research abstract - these are just for us, as a guideline to improve the abstract. I think "criteria" is safer than "standards". Whether a principle is good or bad tends to lead to debate. Whether a criterion is satisfied or not is a more objective question, independent of whether you agree with the criterion or not. In the rewrite below, we propose a theoretical standard and show that the new standard can be satisfied. Maneage is *used as a tool* to prove that the standard is not too difficult to achieve. Maneage is no longer the subject of the paper. (That won't change the main body of the paper too much, apart from compression, but the way it's presented will have to change, under this proposal.) The title would need to match this. E.g. TITLE.1: Evidence that a higher standard of reproducibility criteria is attainable TITLE.2: Evidence that a rigorous standard of reproducibility criteria is attainable TITLE.3: Towards a more rigorous standard of reproducibility criteria I would probably go for TITLE.3.
Diffstat (limited to 'reproduce/software/config')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions