REV: Add high-level paper summary

[sebastientourbier]

PR related to JOSS review: openjournals/joss-reviews#4248

This PR resolves #161.

It addresses issue point 2) by adding in the paper the suggested high-level summary.

It addresses issue points 2 and 3 by renaming the following sections:

• "Summary" -> "Design and functionality overview"
• "Mention" -> "Community impact"

Finally, the sections "Outputs ready to be reused in the BIDS ecosystem" and "A focus on accessibility and versatility" have been swapped to improve the rendering of the compiled PDF.

Generation of the PDF of the most updated draft could done with https://whedon.theoj.org/ as follows:

[sebastientourbier]

Dear co-authors/contributors,

Hope you are doing well!

CMP3's review is on going, and while I can take care of most of the points that are very software/docs related, I would need your feedback on this.

In fact in response to the following comment:

The JOSS guidelines state that the paper should have "A summary describing the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience". At the moment, the summary section makes out the bulk of the paper, and I consider much of it to be quite detailed and specialist. I don't think this content is a problem though, just that I'm missing a shorter summary for a diverse, non-specialist audience. Perhaps a new paragraph could be included to serve as such a summary, while the current Summary section could be renamed to Functionality (or something similar). That is if you (and the JOSS editors) agree that this is indeed a useful approach.

I added a short high-level summary in the paper that you can review here whenever you find a little bit of time, and directly add comments / suggestions.

Best

[sebastientourbier]

@anilbey I could not add you directly as reviewer but It does not mean you got forgotten ;)

FYI

Dear co-authors/contributors,

Hope you are doing well!

CMP3's review is on going, and while I can take care of most of the points that are very software/docs related, I would need your feedback on this.

In fact in response to the following comment:

The JOSS guidelines state that the paper should have "A summary describing the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience". At the moment, the summary section makes out the bulk of the paper, and I consider much of it to be quite detailed and specialist. I don't think this content is a problem though, just that I'm missing a shorter summary for a diverse, non-specialist audience. Perhaps a new paragraph could be included to serve as such a summary, while the current Summary section could be renamed to Functionality (or something similar). That is if you (and the JOSS editors) agree that this is indeed a useful approach.

I added a short high-level summary in the paper that you can review here whenever you find a little bit of time, and directly add comments / suggestions.

Best

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #175 (055634f) into master (af079cf) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 055634f differs from pull request most recent head 1467af9. Consider uploading reports for the commit 1467af9 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #175   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.65%   72.65%           
=======================================
  Files          35       35           
  Lines        7820     7820           
=======================================
  Hits         5682     5682           
  Misses       2138     2138           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update af079cf...1467af9. Read the comment docs.

[anilbey]

Looks very good, thanks @sebastientourbier !
It's easy to understand for people not having a background in connectomics.

I just made one suggestion and 3 typos.

[sebastientourbier]

Dear @jsheunis,

Please find in this PR a revised version of the paper which now includes a more high-level summary as well as the renaming of a few sections to integrate your suggestions / comments in #161.

I will merge it when you approve. Please let me know what you think.

Here is a recap of the PR description which more fully details the changes:

PR related to JOSS review: openjournals/joss-reviews#4248

This PR resolves #161.

It addresses issue point 2) by adding in the paper the suggested high-level summary.

It addresses issue points 2 and 3 by renaming the following sections:

* "Summary" -> "Design and functionality overview"

* "Mention" -> "Community impact"

Finally, the sections "Outputs ready to be reused in the BIDS ecosystem" and "A focus on accessibility and versatility" have been swapped to improve the rendering of the compiled PDF.

Generation of the PDF of the most updated draft could done with https://whedon.theoj.org/ as follows:

Thank you very much in advance.
Best regards

[jsheunis]

I like these changes, the summary contains everything that is important to mention about the package, communicated at a high level for a broader audience.

[sebastientourbier]

Great! I will then take care of the merge :)
I also like these changes that you suggested.
Thank you very much @jsheunis!