1 files changed, 147 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/peer-review/2-review.txt b/peer-review/2-review.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f8cdd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/peer-review/2-review.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+From: Computing in Science and Engineering <onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com>
+To: mohammad akhlaghi org,
+    infantesainz gmail com,
+    boud astro uni torun pl,
+    mkhellat ideal-information.com,
+    david.valls-gabaud observatoiredeparis psl eu,
+    rbaena iac es
+Cc: cise@computer.org,
+    cise-rr@computer.org
+Received: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:39:59 +0000
+Subject: Decision - Computing in Science and Engineering, CiSESI-2020-06-0048.R1
+
+--------------------------------------------------
+
+Computing in Science and Engineering, CiSESI-2020-06-0048.R1
+"Towards Long-term and Archivable Reproducibility"
+manuscript type: Reproducible Research
+
+Dear Dr. Mohammad Akhlaghi:
+
+Congratulations! Your manuscript, "Towards Long-term and Archivable
+Reproducibility," CiSESI-2020-06-0048.R1, has been accepted for publication
+in an upcoming issue of Computing in Science and Engineering, subject to a
+final light copyedit.  Do note the editors' comments below.
+
+Thank you,
+Lorena A. Barba
+Editor in Chief, Computing in Science and Engineering
+labarba gwu edu
+**********
+
+Editor-in-Chief's Comments
+**********
+- I am processing this as an "accept" to expedite, but please take
+  notice/care of the following items before submitting your final files.
+- Note particularly that you have to edit any usage of a reference (like
+  [1]) as part of speech in a sentence. Use alternatives like "Smith et
+  al. [1]." The article template uses superscripts for references!
+- I strongly recommend that you deposit the appendices in arXiv, separately
+  from the main preprint. This way, all the cited works will get their
+  citation indexed by Google Scholar, which the authors will likely
+  appreciate.
+- You may add the arXiv id for the manuscript and the appendices in your
+  reproducibility statement at the end of the Abstract.
+- I have manually edited the due date for your final files for Friday April
+  9 because we are finalizing the next issue. If we received your files
+  ASAP we can include your article in the next issue.
+
+Associate Editor Comments:
+**********
+(There are no comments)
+
+Reviewers' Comments
+**********
+
+Reviewer: 1
+
+Recommendation: Accept With No Changes
+
+Comments:
+A more in depth evaluation of different options from a technical standpoint
+rather than just discussion would really strengthen the paper showing that
+the idea isn't just good enough to generate this paper that does not
+contain experimental code executions and benchmarking demonstrating
+different system characteristics. Deeper acknowledgement of the differences
+each system brings and over time as they are improved could be greatly
+expanded. This is an area of extreme concern.
+
+Additional Questions:
+
+1. How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical?
+Please explain your rating in the Detailed Comments section.: Very Relevant
+
+2. To what extent is this manuscript relevant to readers around the world?:
+The manuscript is of interest to readers throughout the world
+
+1. Please summarize what you view as the key point(s) of the manuscript and
+the importance of the content to the readers of this periodical: This
+paper presents necessary requirements for reproducible work. This is aimed
+at being able to generate the same output from a workflow of inputs, test
+code, and data processing into a text report format.
+
+The concepts presented cover a wide variety of topics hitting on the vast
+majority of cases. The kinds of things not really addressed, such as minor
+hardware version differences not evident except in physical stamps on the
+part itself, but yielding slightly different behavior, are mentioned at a
+high level and left unaddressed. These concerns are part of the longevity
+discussion instead and limit the lifetime of an artifact.
+
+The topics presented cover the topic reasonably well and offer a good guide
+for people to think about how best to approach providing a reproducible
+scientific system. Most favorably, the paper itself is offered as an
+example with an embedded, machine generated version ID and link to the
+source materials. This is truly putting your money where your mouth is, so
+to speak.
+
+2. Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer in the
+Detailed Comments section.: Yes
+
+3. What do you see as this manuscript's contribution to the literature in
+this field?: Clearly defining what the longevity limitations are for
+reproducible work is crucial for us as a community to have effective
+discussions about what we mean for something to be reproducible. Unless we
+can agree what acceptable longevity is, we cannot agree if something is
+reproducible or not. The other factors listed for different components are
+important things to consider and cover basically everything necessary.
+
+4. What do you see as the strongest aspect of this manuscript?: A simple,
+easy to follow discussion of what reproducibility really means and how to
+achieve it.
+
+5. What do you see as the weakest aspect of this manuscript?: Few examples
+of the process itself and no testing/comparison of any of the variants in
+the supplemental materials.
+
+1. Does the manuscript contain title, abstract, and/or keywords?: Yes
+
+2. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please elaborate in
+the Detailed Comments section.: Yes
+
+3. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references
+(maximum 12-unless the article is a survey or tutorial in scope)? Please
+elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: References are sufficient and
+appropriate
+
+4. Does the introduction clearly state a valid thesis? Please explain your
+answer in the Detailed Comments section.: Yes
+
+5. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Please elaborate
+in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory
+
+6. Is the manuscript focused? Please elaborate in the Detailed Comments
+section.: Satisfactory
+
+7. Is the length of the manuscript appropriate for the topic? Please
+elaborate in the Detailed Comments section.: Satisfactory
+
+8. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript in the
+Detailed Comments section.: Easy to read
+
+9. Please rate and comment on the timeliness and long term interest of this
+manuscript to CiSE readers in the Detailed Comments section. Select all
+that apply.: Topic and content are of immediate and continuing interest to
+CiSE readers
+
+Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice in the Detailed Comments
+section.: Good