---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Meeting: Discussing revisions to the manuscript'

---

# Meeting: Discussing revisions to the manuscript

Comments and recommendations from the editor and reviewers were divided across Github Issues and are available at https://github.com/SORTEE-Github-Hackathon/manuscript/issues.

The aim of this meeting is to discuss and decide on the changes that are necessary to address the remaining issues (comments), and only if possible, apply these changes for submission before the end of 2022.

## Comments

**[R1.1.]()**

Proposed solution:
1. Introduce git further in the introduction to convince readers to adopt GitHub. This would allow us to avoid repetition across the use cases, addressing other comments from reviewers and editors;
2. Cut back in the details  and jargon such as how GitHub Projects or Discussions integrate issues, commits, discussions;

**[R1.2.]()**

Proposed solution:

1. Decrease jargon keeping in mind the new git paragraph (see above) and that it is not in scope of this paper to teach git/GitHub

**[R1.3.]()**

Proposed solution:

**[E1.1: Suggestion to generalize certain use cases and to simplify the narrative to entry-level users]()**

Proposed solution:
1. Shift the laboratory notebook section towards maybe laboratory materials, and merge part of it with the storing and sharing research compendia section, and shift certain contents to the hosting website contents;
2.  Decrease jargon;
3.  


**[R2.5: Replace Figure 1 or add another figure detailing generalized research workflow contextualized with the use cases](https://github.com/SORTEE-Github-Hackathon/manuscript/issues/282)**

Proposed solutions:

1. replace Figure 1 with a screenshot of a/our github repo overview page with highlighted areas and annotations (Freddy to give it a go)
2. in the figure caption, highlight that ideally the entire scientific workflow from conceptualisation, to data, analysis scripts, and output are on GitHub

Pedro:
https://github.com/SORTEE-Github-Hackathon/Research-Project-Name

--

[R1.3: Request to define the attributes of GitHub in terms of investment return on time and effort](https://github.com/SORTEE-Github-Hackathon/manuscript/issues/279)

Proposed solution:
1. It looks like return on investment is very subjective, and perhaps, we should avoid adding this layer of abstraction to the study. We can add a couple sentences about this, if necessary.
2. The other comments 

--

**[R2.1: Improvements to legibility and abstraction on Figure 1](https://github.com/SORTEE-Github-Hackathon/manuscript/issues/282)**

see R2.5





## Notes 
<!-- Other important details discussed during the meeting can be entered here. -->