reply_to_review.txt
1.66 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
First of all, thanks for all the valuable feedback.
We read all the reviews feedback and tried to address most of the problems in
the paper. For a matter of space, we replied the main points that we already
correct here.
"The scientific contributions of the study are unclear. The paper is very practical..."
We agreed about the lack of references, and based on the feedback we provided
more academic literature in our work. Therefore, we had to rewrite some phrases
of the text to better use the references.
"Provide more information on the research approach. Adding a..."
We agreed with the idea to add information about the research approach, hence,
we explained it with more details and with a diagram.
"Add more information concerning the process to collect the requirements..."
We added an extra explanation about the process of collecting the requirements
which led us to the architecture definition.
"Add a conclusion section including the relevance of the topic..."
We reorganized the lesson learn sections and added the conclusion as the
reviews recommended.
"The abstract does not contain..."
One of the reviewers highlighted some problems with the abstract. We agreed
with the feedback and organized again the ideas inside the abstract to better
reflect our work
"Avoid the terms “and so forth”..."
We did a review in the text to remove terms which are not informative
"“there was a large amount of technical debt” : define “technical debt”..."
Agreed, we defined technical debt
"Brazilian public software : ..."
We search in the text some inaccurate phrases, and fixed every one
"The link http://mezuro.org/ is unavailable..."
We fixed the mezuro web page