template for the updated results checklist, this is the same PDF I shared with you earlier today + system specifications
description of workflow for code publication after delivery of results
On the second, I think we should decide what to do when authors want to update a paper after the review and add more exhibits or change an existing one. For now, I'm mentioning that "reviewers will confirm that the changes applied did not change the reproducibility of the paper analyzed" which is something we can easily do by checking changes in do-files or scripts using git. But if they applied changes, the review would not be valid anymore for the updated version of the paper. Would we want to link it to the updated paper then? we can discuss a workflow for this on July
@mariaruth I'm adding two files in this PR:
On the second, I think we should decide what to do when authors want to update a paper after the review and add more exhibits or change an existing one. For now, I'm mentioning that "reviewers will confirm that the changes applied did not change the reproducibility of the paper analyzed" which is something we can easily do by checking changes in do-files or scripts using git. But if they applied changes, the review would not be valid anymore for the updated version of the paper. Would we want to link it to the updated paper then? we can discuss a workflow for this on July