Review of submission 137rietz

timm commented 5 years ago

Dear reviewers,

From the install: "You will have to create an Azure account in order to use the bot and generate the relevant authentication information.".

fear not if you do not have such an account. these authors seek an Available badge and that can be done without executing the code.

dmz-peerreview commented 5 years ago

Dear authors (@tr-evo),

Can you please provide also the RE@Next! manuscript? Ideally directly here in the repository. Thanks!

tr-evo commented 5 years ago

Please find the manuscript in its pre camera-ready form in the repo here

dmz-peerreview commented 5 years ago

The authors have contributed the source for the chat bot implementation (LadderBot) used in context of their RE@Next! 2019 submission Rietz, T. and Maedche, M. (2019) "LadderBot - A requirements self-elicitation system". This chat bot shall showcast an exemplary prototype to support requirements elicitation via a (currently semi-automated) conversational agent.

The disclosed documentation is excellent and self-explanatory. The further (background) information provided in the Readme file is sufficient (after checking against the information provided also from the current experimental stages reported in the manuscript). I further consider the disclosure of the prototype important and impactful going beyond the envisioned use cases in context of requirements elicitation.

Finally, the authors have assigned a CC-BY Licence which I applaud (given the large extent of licences still having a non-commercial clause and causing problems when referred to from practical settings).

As a minor issue, I am not sure if novice users are really able to get the bot running easily, but this is certainly not an acceptance criterion applied here.

What I couldn't find yet is the DOI, which I expect, however, the authors to not have been able to assign yet? Same holds for the DOI of the paper itself that the authors should add to the licence once they receive it from the proceedings chairs.

Provided that

the DOI is given (or that the authors indicate to it in case I missed it)
and that the authors (will at later stages) add the DOI of the paper / complete reference to the paper to the licence description for proper citation purposes

I recommend the badge of Availability.

timm commented 5 years ago

Dear authors (@tr-evo),

can u organize a DOI for your artifact? we can't give you "available" without it.

FYI: GitHub may not like your large files but zenodo will take a large zip.

is that too much to ask? please advise.

tr-evo commented 5 years ago

Dear reviewers, dear Timm,

Thank you for the affirmative feedback and recommending the accreditation of the Availability badge. In the meantime, we were able to organize a DOI for the artifact through Zenodo. In the following, please find the relevant information.

URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3270528 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3270528

We will add the artifact DOI to the licence information as well as the paper DOI, once we receive it.

dmz-peerreview commented 5 years ago

@tr-evo thank you for reacting so fast in this matter, highly appreciated! The Zenodo package looks very good to me!

timm commented 5 years ago

@neilernst : please concur on "Available" (or switch to "SecondReview")

researchart / re19

Review of submission 137rietz #17