From 9c1e914ff90289eab8bc93bbe33c2774571c1518 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Philipp S. Sommer" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:03:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] add answer on clarification requestion for policies closes #172 --- review_answers/review_2_answers.md | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/review_answers/review_2_answers.md b/review_answers/review_2_answers.md index f32f753..b2b3d52 100644 --- a/review_answers/review_2_answers.md +++ b/review_answers/review_2_answers.md @@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ The actual number of core modules is not important since we expect RSE units to **Answer:** +As stated in the section, DFG grant applications require discussion on software management (i.e. it is mandatory), and Software Management Plans are currently only recommended. A look into the policy of the Nature journal (https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/reporting-standards#availability-of-computer-code) reveals that, in the end, it is subject to the editor whether code needs to be made available to reviewers, etc. or not. + +Initiatives are by nature not mandatory or recommended, they just provide resources. + +We apologize that we cannot see room for clarification here and kindly ask the reviewer to be more explicit on the exact policy he requests to be clarified. + --- ## Vision