aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/reproduce
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorBoud Roukema <boud@cosmo.torun.pl>2020-05-01 05:25:55 +0200
committerBoud Roukema <boud@cosmo.torun.pl>2020-05-01 05:25:55 +0200
commit1c2061404db9209758f6bb066855decb393ea06d (patch)
treea3c8006e214119225d54049d9f103e36c206de75 /reproduce
parent2e525d9a1e1bd6829fb97ca2f1e39309852c179c (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')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions