Primeiro rascunho da resposta

Rodrigo Siqueira de Melo
1 parent 241ea0a9
Showing 1 changed file with 38 additions and 0 deletions Show diff stats
opensym2017/reply_to_review.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+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
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@		@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
	1	+First of all, thanks for all the valuable feedback.
	2	+We read all the reviews feedback and tried to address most of the problems in
	3	+the paper. For a matter of space, we replied the main points that we already
	4	+correct here.
	5	+
	6	+"The scientific contributions of the study are unclear. The paper is very practical..."
	7	+We agreed about the lack of references, and based on the feedback we provided
	8	+more academic literature in our work. Therefore, we had to rewrite some phrases
	9	+of the text to better use the references.
	10	+
	11	+"Provide more information on the research approach. Adding a..."
	12	+We agreed with the idea to add information about the research approach, hence,
	13	+we explained it with more details and with a diagram.
	14	+
	15	+"Add more information concerning the process to collect the requirements..."
	16	+We added an extra explanation about the process of collecting the requirements
	17	+which led us to the architecture definition.
	18	+
	19	+"Add a conclusion section including the relevance of the topic..."
	20	+We reorganized the lesson learn sections and added the conclusion as the
	21	+reviews recommended.
	22	+
	23	+"The abstract does not contain..."
	24	+One of the reviewers highlighted some problems with the abstract. We agreed
	25	+with the feedback and organized again the ideas inside the abstract to better
	26	+reflect our work
	27	+
	28	+"Avoid the terms “and so forth”..."
	29	+We did a review in the text to remove terms which are not informative
	30	+
	31	+"“there was a large amount of technical debt” : define “technical debt”..."
	32	+Agreed, we defined technical debt
	33	+
	34	+"Brazilian public software : ..."
	35	+We search in the text some inaccurate phrases, and fixed every one
	36	+
	37	+"The link http://mezuro.org/ is unavailable..."
	38	+We fixed the mezuro web page