-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JOSS Review: paper feedback #260
Comments
Hi! Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback. I have addressed all the points you raised and have made the necessary revisions. Below is a summary of the changes made: Major Points:
Figures:
References:
You can find all the modifications in this Pull Request. Please review the changes and let me know if there are any further adjustments needed. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. |
Thank you, this reads like promising improvements to the paper. Could you kindly update the branch from which the paper is compiled so the changes can be seen on the pdf? |
Hi,
here are my revision points for the software paper.
Summary
I think that, overall, the paper looks really great. It is well-written, concise, and easy-to-follow but instructive even for a non-domain-informed audience. There are a few points (see below) that could use some slight improvements/additions, but I feel the paper is close to checking the JOSS boxes.
Major points
Minor
10: the second sentence of the summary is quite long and confusing. maybe split into multiple sentences for simplification.
11: equip's -> equips
25: researches propose -> research proposes
28: researches -> research
Figures
References
co-ordination: Vol. II (9th ed.). (2022). (9th ed.) " does not compile nicely, but I'm also not sure how to fix it. Maybe the manual has an ISBN instead?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: