logseq/pages/Revision-Paper-Apurv-on-Software-Practice-and-Experience.md

• Reviews
  • Reviewing: 1
    • It is a good, comprehensive and well-developed research article, but it lacks the desirable quality in three specific parts, which I list below:
      background-color:: yellow
      • The related work appears as a somewhat disjointed section of lower quality than the rest of the whole. I suggest making an SLR indicating the methodology used, criteria for inclusion, exclusion, etc. and thus create this section systematically indicating similar existing solutions. background-color:: red
      • These existing solutions should structure the research questions of the article, or be connected to them, demonstrating with use cases and quantitative analyses what improvements in terms of effectiveness and/or efficiency the proposal presents compared to existing solutions.
      • A discussion section should be created on the threats to the validation carried out, discussing intrinsic and extrinsic threats, and how they have been addressed.
  • Reviewing: 2
    • This is a well-written paper that aligns with the journal topic. Only minor issues need to be addressed.
      background-color:: green
      • The overuse of footnotes. Abbreviations should be defined in the main text rather than in the footnotes. For example, mention in the main text "Role Activity Diagram (RAD)" instead of "RAD\footnote{Role Activity Diagram}."
      • Another round of a quick scan of the paper by the authors can fix some minor writing/language issues throughout the paper.
      • Section 4 is "Discussion." Section 5, "Discussing LCDPS according to BPMN Quality Criteria," reads like another discussion. These sections could be presented with better titles. Section 4 probably needs a more descriptive name, like section 5.