Review of submission Kempe_RE_AE

[LloydThinks]

Author: @ekempe1
Reviewer 1: @ReviewerRE21
Reviewer 2: @swan17-bestreviewer

[swan17-bestreviewer]

Nice interview guide and well documented! I have two small issues:

• In the guidelines, it is required that there is an "Artifact location" section in the README.md. I think this is not explicitly there yet.
• Maybe you could add in the guideline what flavour of Grounded Theory you are following, as not for all flavours an a priori coding scheme would be appropriate.

[ekempe1]

Thank you for your feedback. To your first comment, we submitted a proposed change to the ReadMe.me file in the Github repository. Also, the location of the Artifact is within the Submission.md file. For the second comment, we added the following line under the Coding Scheme section: "For use of this coding scheme, use a traditional ground theory methodology as described in Merriam and Tisdell’s Qualitative Research book [4]." If you have further questions, please let me know. Evelyn

…

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 3:48 AM swan17-bestreviewer ***@***.***> wrote: Nice interview guide and well documented! I have two small issues: In the guidelines, it is required that there is an "Artifact location" section in the README.md. I think this is not explicitly there yet. Maybe you could add in the guideline what flavour of Grounded Theory you are following, as not for all flavours an a priori coding scheme would be appropriate. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[LloydThinks]

Dear @ekempe1, @swan17-bestreviewer, and @ReviewerRE21,

Thank you for your initial review and feedback cycle. We are still waiting on one review, but I wanted to make a recommendation from the RE Artifact Evaluation track Co-Chairs. We recommend that this artifact also be considered for the Available badge as it appears to already qualify. The artifact has a DOI, hosted in FigShare [1], which meets all of the Available badge requirements. If you agree, reviewers, we recommend that Available badge as well as the ongoing discussion around the Reusable badge.

[1] https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14842242

Please @swan17-bestreviewer @ReviewerRE21, let me know your response regarding the Available badge.

Lloyd & Nash

[ReviewerRE21]

Hej,

I concur with the previous comments. The interview guide is very well documented and fit the purpose of the Reusable badge. I also see the point by @LloydThinks, and agree that the artefact also fulfils the requirements for the available badge.

Good work!

[swan17-bestreviewer]

I also agree. For me, Reusable and Available are fulfilled.

[ekempe1]

Thank you for your comments and we will submit for the Available badge as well. Is there a any further action on our part to submit for this badge? ekempe1

…

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 2:53 AM swan17-bestreviewer ***@***.***> wrote: I also agree. For me, Reusable and Available are fulfilled. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQMGPXZEDTVDUYJCGLZWI2LTW2MGNANCNFSM47OA447A> .