Final check of content

[nuest]

Go through https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003858#s6 and see if we're on track.

• Introduction
• Rule 1: Have Ten Rules
• Rule 2: Choose Your Topic Wisely
• Rule 3: Include an Introduction
• Rule 4: Be Philip E. Bourne
• Rule 5: Collaborate
• Rule 6: Research
• Rule 7: Write Well
• Rule 8: Reference
• Rule 9: Edit
• Rule 10: Have a Voice
• Conclusion

[nuest]

@betatim @sje30 I think it is time I appeal to you for help: can you give the current state of the article a good read, from top to bottom? I think a critical read withe the above rules in mind and keeping an eye on potential for shortening is needed to give the manuscript better focus.

[nuest]

Let's do this after the preprint to do it for the actual 10 rules.

[nuest]

Some comments:

• "Choose your topic wisely": IMO Dockerfiles are used by some people, but the majority has no clue and might not dare to ask - so it's good we introduce readers to something they potentially wanted to know two years ago.
• "Include an Introduction": got it, and given the complexity of the topic, we hopefully get away with the length
• "Collaborate": https://github.com/nuest/ten-simple-rules-dockerfiles/graphs/contributors
• "Research": so, the "simple" and length does not seem such a strong requirement after all! 😀
• "Write Well": I hope we have found a consistent and good style. I don't think we are to technical or excluding... and we have a language review by a professional copyeditor happening right now.
• "References": ✔️
• "Edit": ✔️
• "Have a Voice": I think we do have opinions and plenty of recommendations that will spark debates, and not everyone will follow all rules - but I'm very happy with the style!

[nuest]

No way we will close Rule 4 😞 ...