From 0903d9e383c708a01f33ad379d181da653baa930 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dorner Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:29:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Fix broken link to FAQ --- README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 5a3445a..07c8b21 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ If you are interested in joining the board and contributing to open science at E Throughout the whole communication process, the Open Science co-Chairs serve as mediator between the authors and the Open Science Board members in a, for now, single blind process. -The [Frequently Asked Questions](FAQ.md) provides additional information. +The [Frequently Asked Questions](#faq) provides additional information. ## EMSE papers with the Open Science Badge From 84fe95cca2f70b5c3e2dd88b8908e46fa1a7bbf2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dorner Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:36:34 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Lint review-criteria.md --- review-criteria.md | 34 +++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/review-criteria.md b/review-criteria.md index 936f4dc..7691c61 100644 --- a/review-criteria.md +++ b/review-criteria.md @@ -1,47 +1,43 @@ -EMSE Open science - Evaluation Criteria +EMSE Open Science - Evaluation Criteria ======================= Authors: the EMSE open science board, see -This document contains the points that will be evaluated by the open science reviewer. It can be considered as the review template. - +This document contains the points that will be evaluated by the open science reviewer. It can be considered as the review template. Is the replication package? -------- - Downloadable behind a public URL? -- Does the data and code lie behind a single URL[? (Recommendation: it - should be the case)]{.c2} +- Does the data and code lie behind a single URL (recommendation)? Archived? -- Is the replication package hosted on an persistent, +- Is the replication package hosted on a persistent, archived repository? (Recommendation: even the submitted version - should be hosted on a archived repository, such as [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org/) or [archive.org](https://archive.org/) + should be hosted on an archived repository, such as [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org/) or [archive.org](https://archive.org/) Documented? -- Is the replication package properly documented? +- Is the replication package properly documented? - - does the replication package contain an inventory of artifacts (files and folders)? - - are the used file formats documented? - - are the naming conventions documented? +- does the replication package contain an inventory of artifacts (files and folders)? +- are the used file formats documented? +- are the naming conventions documented? Complete? -- Does the replication package contain everything required to understand and/or recompute all data, numbers and figures presented in the paper? +- Does the replication package contain everything required to understand and/or recompute all data, numbers, and figures presented in the paper? Exercisable? (if the paper contains results based on code) -- Does the code compile and execute given the instructions in the package? -- Does the code only depend on publicly-available modules and libraries? +- Does the code compile and execute given the instructions in the package? +- Does the code only depend on publicly available modules and libraries? Licensed? -- Does the replication package contain an appropriate license for the code or data? - - We strongly encourage that the replication package contains a license. - - The Open Science board suggest the CC-BY version 4.0 which is is suitable for data - +- Does the replication package contain an appropriate license for the code or data? +- We strongly encourage the replication package to contain a license. +- The Open Science board suggests the CC-BY version 4.0, which is is suitable for data From 7c1bbee14fac5cc2c0102039cddc8facae1c1e8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Dorner Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:37:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Improve readability --- review-criteria.md | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/review-criteria.md b/review-criteria.md index 7691c61..42e9583 100644 --- a/review-criteria.md +++ b/review-criteria.md @@ -11,13 +11,11 @@ Is the replication package? Downloadable behind a public URL? -- Does the data and code lie behind a single URL (recommendation)? +- Does the data and code lie behind a single URL (Recommendation: Yes)? Archived? -- Is the replication package hosted on a persistent, - archived repository? (Recommendation: even the submitted version - should be hosted on an archived repository, such as [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org/) or [archive.org](https://archive.org/) +- Is the replication package hosted on a persistent, archived repository? (Recommendation: Even the submitted version should be hosted on an archived repository, such as [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org/) or [archive.org](https://archive.org/) Documented?