Peer reviews are in

[asmeurer]

The reviews are in for the paper. There are several revisions that are requested by the referees.

Question: is everyone able to see them at https://peerj.com/manuscripts/11410/? If not, I will copy them here.

[aktech]

Question: is everyone able to see them at https://peerj.com/manuscripts/11410/?

Yes, I am able to see.

[leosartaj]

I am able to see it. Everyone should able to see it though. Should we make somekind of a TODO after reading the comments?

[asmeurer]

A checklist for each of the comments would be useful. If someone wants to work on that, feel free to add it to the top of this issue.

[certik]

Note that one has to login. So I don't see them from a phone, but hopefully
I'll see them once I login.

Sent from my mobile phone.
On Aug 1, 2016 12:50 AM, "Aaron Meurer" notifications@github.com wrote:

The reviews are in for the paper. There are several revisions that are
requested by the referees.

Question: is everyone able to see them at
https://peerj.com/manuscripts/11410/? If not, I will copy them here.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#202, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABQWPxzbEMHG-yEsEjN0AY62Mt5E24Sks5qbZcxgaJpZM4JZS3j
.

[scopatz]

Yes, I can see the reviews.

[certik]

I can see the reviews now after logging in. Looks like we got very good reviews. We should address all the points that they raised. Regarding the fist reviewer saying it is out of scope --- I thought we submitted to PeerJ Computer Science, but the review question/direction that the reviewer got from the online system seems to suggest we only submitted to PeerJ. @asmeurer, can you clarify this?

[asmeurer]

The editor confirmed that it is in scope.

[certik]

@asmeurer thanks, that's great news. @asmeurer besides submitting an updated version of the article, how do you submit a reaction to the reviews? Is it just a text, or can it be a pdf document?

Usually one updates the paper and prepares a reaction where each point made by each reviewer is commented on, and explained how the article was updated based on it (if applicable).

[asmeurer]

I'm trying to figure that out. I'll forward you the email I got from PeerJ.

[scopatz]

There is often also a formal response letter, that the point-by-point messages are either an attachment to or included within

[certik]

@asmeurer forwarded me the email from the editor. It specifically asks for a Rebuttal letter (addressing all the Editors' and reviewers' suggestions and feedback, point-by-point) and they provided a link to
Writing a rebuttal guide. So that answers my questions.

P.S. I missed the third review (you have to click the "View annotated manuscript" to see it), which asks for a reorganization of the paper. So we should have a discussion how to best do that.

[asmeurer]

Yes, I also missed that initially. There are four reviews, one annotated PDF from the editor with a few comments, and three reviews (one of which is an annotated PDF) from the referees.

[certik]

@asmeurer ah, and I missed that the editor also reviewed it. So we have 4 reviews.

[ashutoshsaboo]

Hi @asmeurer , I am not able to view the reviews. Following is the error message attached, that I receive after I login to my PeerJ account. Is it because my name as a co-author in the paper is not linked to my PeerJ account, or what might be the reason? @certik

[asmeurer]

@ashutoshsaboo it shows that you never accepted the peerj invitation. Did you sign up with the same email that you used for the paper?