diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | peer-review/1-answer.txt | 41 |
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'. + ------------------------------ |