| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
A new directory has been added at the top of the project's source called
'peer-review'. The raw reviews of the paper by the editors and referees has
been added there as '1-review.txt'. All the main points raised by the
referees have been listed in a numbered list and addressed (mostly) in
'1-answers.txt'. The text of the paper now also includes all the
implemented answers to the various points.
|
|
Until now, the core Maneage 'paper.tex' had a '\highlightchanges' macro
that defines two LaTeX macros: '\new' and '\tonote'.
When '\highlightchanges' was defined, anything that was written within
'\new' became dark green (highlighting new things that have been
added). Also, anything that was written in '\tonote' was put within a '[]'
and became dark red (to show that there is a note here that should be
addressed later).
When '\highlightchanges' wasn't defined, anything within the '\new' element
would be black (like the rest of the text), and the things in '\tonote'
would not be shown at all.
Commenting the '\newcommand{\highlightchanges}{}' line within 'paper.tex'
(to toggle the modes above) would create a different Git hash and has to be
committed.
But this different commit hash could create a false sense in the reader
that other things have also been changed and the only way they could
confirm was to actually go and look into the project history (which they
will not usually have time to do, and thus won't be able to trust the two
modes of the text).
Also, the added highlights and the note highlights were bundeled together
into one macro, so you couldn't only have one of them.
With this commit, the choice of highlighting either one of the two is now
done as two new run-time options to the './project' script (which are
passed to the Makefiles, and written into the 'project.tex' file which is
loaded into 'paper.tex'). In this way, we can generate two PDFs with the
same Git commit (project's state): one with the selected highlights and
another one without it.
This issue actually came up for me while implementing the changes here: we
need to submit one PDF to the journal/referees with highlights on the added
features. But we also need to submit another PDF to arXiv and Zenodo
without any highlights. If the PDFs have different commit hashes, the
referees may associate it with other changes in any part of the work. For
example https://oadoi.org/10.22541/au.159724632.29528907 that mentions
"Another version of the manuscript was published on arXiv: 2006.03018",
while the only difference was a few words in the abstract after the journal
complained on the abstract word-count of our first submission (where the
commit hashes matched with arXiv/Zenodo).
|
|
Given the referee reports, after discussing with the editors of CiSE, we
decided that it is important to include the complete appendix we had before
that included a thorough review of existing tools and methods. However, the
appendix will not be published in the paper (due to the strict word-count
limit). It will only be used in the arXiv/Zenodo versions of the paper.
This actually created a technical problem: we want the commit hash of the
project source to remain the same when the paper is built with an appendix
or without it.
To fix this problem the choice of including an appendix has gone into the
'project' script as a run-time option called '--no-appendix'. So by default
(when someone just runs './project make'), the PDF will have an appendix,
but when we want to submit to the journal, or when the appendix isn't
needed for a certain reason, we can use this new option. The appendix also
has its own separate bibliography.
Some other corrections made in this commit:
1. Some new references were added that had an '_' in their source, they
were corrected in 'references.tex'.
2. I noticed that 'preamble-style.tex' is not actually used in this paper,
so it has been deleted.
|
|
Marios had read the first draft of the paper (Commit f990bba) and provided
valuable feedback (shown below) that ultimately helped in the current
version. But because of all the work that was necessary in those days, I
forgot to actually thank him in the acknowledgment, while I had implemented
most of his thoughts.
Following Marios' thoughts on the Git branching figure, with this commit, I
am also adding a few sentences at the end of the caption with a very rough
summary of Git.
I also changed the branch commit-colors to shades of brown (incrementally
becoming lighter as higher-level branches are shown) to avoid the confusion
with the blue and green signs within the schematic papers shown in the
figure.
Marios' comments (April 28th, 2020, on Commit f990bba)
------------------------------------------------------
I think the structure of the paper is more or less fine. There are two
places that I thought could be improved:
1) Section 3 (Principles) was somewhat confusing to me in the way that it
was structured. I think the main source of confusion is the mixing of what
Maeage is about and what other programs have done. I would suggest to
separate the two. I would have short intro for the section, similar to what
you have now. However, I would suggest to highlight the underlying goals
motivating the principles that follow: reproducibility, open science,
something else? Then I would go into the details of the seven principles.
Some of the principles are less clear to me than others. For example, why
is simplicity a guiding principle? Then some other principles appear to be
related, for example modularity, minimal complexity and scalability to my
eyes are not necessarily separate.
Finally, I would separate the comparison with other software and either
dedicate a section to that somewhere toward the end of the paper (perhaps a
subsection for section 5) or at least condense it and put it as a closing
paragraph for Section 3. As it is now I think it draws focus from Maneage
and also includes some repetitions.
2) Section 4 (Maneage) was at times confusing because it is written, I
think in part as a demonstration of Maneage (i.e., including examples that
showed how Maneage was used to write this or other papers) and a
manual/description of the software. I wonder whether these two aspects can
be more cleanly separated. Perhaps it would be possible to first have a
section 4 where each of the modules/units of Maneage are listed and
explained and then have the following section discuss a working example of
Maneage using this or another paper.
3) I found Figure 7 [the git branching figure] and its explanation not very
intuitive. This probably has to do with my zero knowledge of github and how
versioning there works, but perhaps the description can be a bit more "user
friendly" even for those who are not familiar with the tool.
4) I find Section 6 to be rather inconsequential. It does not add anything
and it more or less is just a summary of what was discussed. I would
personally remove it and include a very short summary of the
ideals/principles/goals of Maneage at the beginning of Section 5, before
the discussion.
|
|
Publishing a paper on reproducible research without making it easy for
readers to read the references would defeat the point. Of course we have to
make some compromises with some journals' reluctance to shift towards the
free world, but to satisfy scientific ethics, we should at least provide
clickable URLs to the references, preferably to the ArXiv version if
available [1], and also to the DOI, again, preferably to an open-access
version of the URL if available.
I was not able to fully get this done in the .bst file, so there's an
sed/tr hack done to the .bbl file in `reproduce/analysis/make/paper.mk` to
tidy up commas and spaces.
This commit also reverts some of the hacks in the Akhlaghi IAU Symposium
`tex/src/references.tex` entry, to match the improved .bst file,
`tex/src/IEEEtran_openaccess.bst`, provided here with a different name to
the original, in order to satisfy the LaTeX licence.
[1] https://cosmo.torun.pl/blog/arXiv_refs
|
|
To help show the simplicity of 'top-make.mk', it was included as a
listing. I also went over some of Boud's corrections and made small
edits. In particular:
- The '\label' and '\ref' to a section were removed. I done this after
inspecting some of their recent papers and noticing that they generally
have a simple flow, without such redirections.
- In the part about the RDA adoption grant, I moved the "from the
researcher perspective" to the end. Because Austin+2017 is mainly
focused on data-center management, not the researcher's. They do touch
upon researcher solutions that can help data-base managers, but not
directly the researchers. In effect with this grant, they acknowledged
that our researcher-focused solution confirms with their criteria for
data-base management.
|
|
Following the fact that the DSJ editor decided that this paper doesn't fit
into their scope, we decided to submit it to IEEE's Computing in Science
and Engineering (CiSE). So with this commit the text was re-written to fit
into their style and word-count limitations.
|
|
The paper is no longer using LuaLaTeX, but raw LaTeX (that saves a DVI), it
is so much faster! Initially I had used LuaLaTeX to use special fonts to
resemble the CODATA Data Science Journal, but all that overhead is no
longer necessary. Therefore I also removed the MANY extra LaTeX packages we
were importing. The paper builds and is able to construct one of its images
(the git-branching figure) with only 7 packages beyond the minimal
TeX/LaTeX installation. Also in terms of processing it is so much faster.
The text is just temporary now, and mainly just a place holder. With the
next commit, I'll fill it with proper text.
|
