Reviewer 1 Feedback: Section 4

[mhagdorn]

• can you include a footnote to any digital information on the Paderborn workshop?
• Section 4.1.2 - there are multiple research software maturity models/frameworks that have been proposed that adapt SWLC. See, for example, M. R. Mundt, W. Burgess and D. M. Vigil, "A Tiered Approach to Scientific Software Quality Practices," in Proceedings of the 2022 Improving Scientific Software Conference (No. NCAR/TN-574+PROC). doi:10.5065/98kd-b491
• Section 4.1.5 - I recommend adding a note here for "as applicable," e.g., some RSEs at some institutions may not be able to share code publicly because of security or institutional requirements (though they should still use whatever they can for version controlling)
• Section 4.2.4 - Similar note to 4.1.5; there should be something about "adhering to institutional policies" as well
• Section 4.4 (Tasks and Responsibilities) - When talking about RSE communities, it might be worth it to reference some of them, e.g., UK-RSE / Soc RSE, deRSE, US-RSE, RSE-AUNZ, RSE Asia, RSSE Africa, etc.

[CaptainSifff]

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