Skip to content
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

F1000 Bugfixes #385

Open
CaptainSifff opened this issue Dec 2, 2024 · 8 comments
Open

F1000 Bugfixes #385

CaptainSifff opened this issue Dec 2, 2024 · 8 comments

Comments

@CaptainSifff
Copy link
Collaborator

CaptainSifff commented Dec 2, 2024

  • Fix icon size
  • Fix affiliation @BeastyBlacksmith
  • Fix icons are broken links in the text

Feel free to add here, so that we can fix that when the reviews are in!

@CaptainSifff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

first report: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1429/v1#referee-response-345505

@BeastyBlacksmith
Copy link
Collaborator

What a lovely report. Lots of good points in there

@MakisH
Copy link
Collaborator

MakisH commented Dec 17, 2024

Also is it meant to be aspirational (e.g., all RSEs should have these) or does it represent the current state of RSEs (e.g., most RSEs already have these competencies)?

I think this is a confusion we had at different phases and indeed we are probably not consistent (let's check the tables again, for example). I think that we have converged to "RSEs should have these", but we arrive on these points partially based on the what RSEs already have.

Section 5.3 (Project team structures) - there is a gap here: "The single RSE on a team of not-RSEs who does not have a central RSE team connection." These do exist (sadly).

Probably a nice forward-reference to the institutions paper(s)?

I really like the following suggestions for more text:

  • funding methods (but how do we make it fit the teaching aspects?)
  • RSEs being integrated into existing teams and having to fight that team's culture

How do we proceed with the editing/revision? Continue editing normally here, or is that complicated to port to the system again?

Do we need patches, instead?

Where do we write the reply to the reviewers?

@mhagdorn
Copy link
Collaborator

mhagdorn commented Jan 10, 2025

with regards to the icons. I wonder if we should drop them for the F1000 publication and keep them for the arxiv version. a suitable latex conditional could do the trick. This might also help with the workflow for addressing the issues/suggestions raised by the reviewers:

  • modify the document here as we have done before
  • convert it to docx at the end which maybe simpler

That way we get to stick our tried and tested workflow and also update the arxiv version of the paper

@CaptainSifff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

For the time being, I cannot upload a RTF, or DOC Version.... Their download is broken...

@CaptainSifff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

So we now have a file from F1000. I can open it with the MS365 word version, but not with loffice.
So remember for the future changes:

  • change markdown file
  • modify docx file
  • put a note into response_to referee.md

@BeastyBlacksmith
Copy link
Collaborator

I would prefer working with a rtf file to be honest

@CaptainSifff
Copy link
Collaborator Author

their rtf download is broken, sorry.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants