Join GitHub today
Review of submission 124chazette #15
I'm going through your paper and artifact.
At a high-level, I understand the contribution of the survey raw data from the paper.
In detail, I have some questions:
Thank you for addressing my questions.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for your response. The xls looks better but is still a bit tricky to read.
Will you be back to your laptop before the end of the week? I don't think I should change what's in the repo. I would recommend the following:
Converting to and from CSV to check that the conversion works. I think something in the excel is adding some strange delimitation to the CSV file.
What is the heading of column CJ and CK? Some hexidecimal? Fix or explain in the readme.
Highlight in the readme that the original response and the translation is available.
As the Excel is hard to read, also check in a text or md version of the survey questions and all the options (Likert options, sub-lists). Even html would be fine. Then we can map back and forth from the questions to the data much easier.
Perhaps, even though it is not as universal, also upload the Excel in addition to the fixed CSV.
Hope you or your co-authors are able to make these small fixes.
A further thought, you've provided the raw data, but not the coding results from the paper. Is this easy also to share? Further spreadsheets or some in vivo files? This would also be interesting for the community.
First, thanks for the significant feedback!
I could arrange to borrow a computer for half of the day to do the changes. I am afraid this was my only opportunity, though. I will only have access to another computer again on Wednesday, the 17th, in time for any (if accepted) camera ready changes.
But now I think I could meet all your requests. I hope it works! Here are the changes I made:
After reviewing the artifact, I can see potential utility for reuse of the raw survey results. The questions in the survey are now clear and easy to read. The presence of the authors codes makes the qualitative analysis comparable at a detailed level, in case future researchers want to compare their codes.
The authors addressed formatting issues with the file and added more supplementary material, making the artifacts easier to understand and use.
As requested, I recommend a badge of REUSABLE.
Hello @anonreporev ,
Thank you for your helpful feedback. I fixed the problems you indicated with the readme file.
Is there still something that needs to be done from my side? Please let me know.