diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'peer-review/1-answer.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | peer-review/1-answer.txt | 25 |
1 files changed, 14 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/peer-review/1-answer.txt b/peer-review/1-answer.txt index 6600d2b..9c6bbd9 100644 --- a/peer-review/1-answer.txt +++ b/peer-review/1-answer.txt @@ -7,16 +7,17 @@ already done a very comprehensive review of the tools (as you may notice from the Git repository[1]). However, the CiSE Author Information explicitly states: "The introduction should provide a modicum of background in one or two paragraphs, but should not attempt to give a literature -review". This is also practiced in previously published papers at CiSE and -is in line with the very limited word-count and maximum of 12 references to +review". This is the usual practice in previously published papers at CiSE and +is in line with the very limited word count and maximum of 12 references to be used in bibliography. -We were also eager to get that extensive review out (which took a lot of -time, and most of the tools were actually run and tested). Hence we -discussed this privately with the editors and this solution was agreed -upon: we include that extended review as appendices on the arXiv[2] and -Zenodo[3] pre-prints of this paper and mention those publicly available -appendices in the submitted paper for an interested reader to followup. +We agree with the need for this extensive review to be on the public record +(creating the review took a lot of time and effort; most of the tools were run and +tested). We discussed this with the editors and the following +solution was agreed upon: we include the extended review as a set of appendices in +the arXiv[2] and Zenodo[3] pre-prints of this paper and mention these +publicly available appendices in the submitted paper so that any interested +reader can easily access them. [1] https://gitlab.com/makhlaghi/maneage-paper/-/blob/master/tex/src/paper-long.tex#L1579 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 @@ -31,7 +32,9 @@ appendices in the submitted paper for an interested reader to followup. 2. [Associate Editor] There are general concerns about the paper lacking focus +########################### ANSWER: +########################### ------------------------------ @@ -43,8 +46,8 @@ ANSWER: (e.g. longevity). ANSWER: It has now been clearly defined in the first paragraph of Section -II. With this definition, the main argument of the paper is much more clear, -thank you (and the referees for highlighting this). +II. With this definition, the main argument of the paper is much clearer, +thank you (and thank you to the referees for highlighting this). ------------------------------ @@ -55,7 +58,7 @@ thank you (and the referees for highlighting this). 4. [Associate Editor] The discussion of tools could benefit from some categorization to characterize their longevity. -ANSWER: The longevity of the general tools reviewed in Section II are now +ANSWER: The longevity of the general tools reviewed in Section II is now mentioned immediately after each (highlighted in green). ------------------------------ |