Skip to content
This repository

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP
Browse code

moving JSS reviewer comments into subdirectory

  • Loading branch information...
commit c966c7e80efa1ad62e55dfba3f612588e28844cb 1 parent 4eae33d
Eric Schulte authored June 13, 2011
0  JSS 705 Comments.txt → reviews/JSS 705 Comments.txt
File renamed without changes
93  reviews/JSS 705.rtf
... ...
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
  1
+{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf949\cocoasubrtf540
  2
+{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;}
  3
+{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;}
  4
+\margl1440\margr1440\vieww9000\viewh8400\viewkind0
  5
+\deftab720
  6
+\pard\pardeftab720\ql\qnatural
  7
+
  8
+\f0\fs24 \cf0 Overall recommendation: \'a0Accept Minor\
  9
+------------------------------------------------------------\
  10
+\
  11
+<review>\
  12
+There are no concerns with the software itself in this case.\
  13
+The profile and community surrounding this project, plus the\
  14
+fact that it is shipped as part of Emacs, provides ample\
  15
+evidence of the success of the developers in producing\
  16
+useful, widely-available, and quality code.\
  17
+\
  18
+The comments of the reviewers, supplemented by my own, are\
  19
+focused on the article itself and improvements on the\
  20
+description and explanation of the software. \'a0The main\
  21
+negative feedback from one reviewer was the fact that\
  22
+this software is Emacs-only, which reduces its potential\
  23
+audience. \'a0This makes it all the more important to make\
  24
+sure that people, such as the other reviewer, are given\
  25
+as much support and encouragement as possible to be able to\
  26
+try out this software.\
  27
+\
  28
+\
  29
+Associate Editor comments:\
  30
+------------------------------------------------------------\
  31
+\
  32
+- There needs to be more references to other comparable\
  33
+\'a0software and what makes this project different. \'a0Examples\
  34
+\'a0(just from the R world) are SASweave, StatWeave, ODFweave,\
  35
+\'a0Sword, and cacheSweave.\
  36
+\
  37
+- In some areas there is too little information. \'a0\'a0Reviewer 1\
  38
+\'a0makes several points about installation, but in a number of\
  39
+\'a0places I wanted to know more. \'a0For example:\
  40
+\
  41
+\'a0+ [page 6] How are data structures shared between different\
  42
+\'a0\'a0\'a0computer languages? \'a0Is some sort of (standard) common\
  43
+\'a0\'a0\'a0object system being employed?\
  44
+\
  45
+\'a0+ Several of the examples are perhaps more complex than\
  46
+\'a0\'a0\'a0they need to be (there are too many things changing\
  47
+\'a0\'a0\'a0at once between examples). \'a0In order to satisfy the claim\
  48
+\'a0\'a0\'a0[page 21] that this system is "easy to adopt", I think\
  49
+\'a0\'a0\'a0that examples could be made simpler and could be\
  50
+\'a0\'a0\'a0presented in a more incremenetal fashion. \'a0For example:\
  51
+\
  52
+\'a0\'a0\'a0- [page 16-17] only some code chunks have a :noweb\
  53
+\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0argument with no explanation of why (or what that\
  54
+\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0argument does)\
  55
+\
  56
+\'a0\'a0\'a0- I did not get a good feel for the different roles of\
  57
+\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0#+headers lines versus #+begin_src lines.\
  58
+\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0More explanation please.\
  59
+\
  60
+\'a0\'a0\'a0- I am not clear on whether #+results lines are manually\
  61
+\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0\'a0typed or automatically generated.\
  62
+\
  63
+\
  64
+\
  65
+Reviewer 1:\
  66
+------------------------------------------------------------\
  67
+\
  68
+Attached.\
  69
+\
  70
+\
  71
+Reviewer 2:\
  72
+------------------------------------------------------------\
  73
+\
  74
+To be honest, I've often wondered how to review papers such as this\
  75
+one. The software appears already well-developed with a reasonable\
  76
+user base (and a nice Google Tech Talk to go with it!). To me, it\
  77
+seems that the fact that many people are using it and that there is a\
  78
+sizable development community is a pretty good "review" of the\
  79
+software.\
  80
+\
  81
+Not being an emacs-lisp expert, I was not able to evaluate the code\
  82
+for the project itself, however I did install the software and use it\
  83
+a bit, particular on the source of the submitted paper itself.\
  84
+Everything appeared to work as advertised and installation of the\
  85
+software was straightforward.\
  86
+\
  87
+I think the main strengths are that the software provides a fairly\
  88
+comprehensive toolset for project management/organization and it\
  89
+supports a variety of languages that can be mixed together in a single\
  90
+document. The main downside I can think of is that the software is\
  91
+based in Emacs and therefore is inherently limited in its scope and\
  92
+impact. Overall, this appears to be nice, useful, and interesting\
  93
+piece of software.}

0 notes on commit c966c7e

Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.