Add review answer templates for F1000Research peer reviews

review_answers/review_1_answers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# Reviewer Report: Fauzan R.
+
+**Verdict:** Approved With Reservations  
+**DOI:** https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188851.r484755  
+**URL:** https://f1000research.com/articles/15-719/v1#referee-response-484755
+
+---
+
+## General remarks
+
+### Comment 1
+> Overall, this topic is discussed accurately and aligns with current RSE literature. The paper appropriately links RSE to sustainable software, reproducibility, FAIR research software, research data management, and institutional research infrastructure. The authors also rightly acknowledge that there is no single optimal blueprint for RSE units and that the portfolio of services should depend on institutional needs and resources.
+>
+> However, some claims require stronger evidence. For example, the paper states that central RSE units can improve grant success, institutional reputation, employee satisfaction, and research quality, but these claims are largely supported by examples, logical arguments, or small-scale observations rather than systematic empirical evidence. The survey of 12 RSE units is useful, but its size is limited and should not be used to support broad generalizations without stronger qualifications. The authors have noted that further study is needed, but this limitation should be more explicitly explained in the discussion and conclusion.
+>
+> To make this article more scholarly, the authors should clearly distinguish between evidence-based findings, expert opinion, and recommendations. They should also add more empirical support, where available, especially for claims about improved software quality, reduced brain drain, better funding acquisition, and institutional competitiveness. If such evidence is not available, these claims should be softened and framed as plausible benefits rather than proven outcomes.
+>
+> The conclusions are generally consistent with the arguments presented, but somewhat stronger than the evidence allows. Recommendations for investing in central RSE units are justified, but statements suggesting widespread institutional improvements should be more carefully balanced with a discussion of risks, costs, governance challenges, and potential failure modes.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Specific requests
+
+### Comment 2
+> Clarify the limitations of the small survey sample.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 3
+> Add stronger empirical evidence for claims of institutional benefits.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 4
+> Separate factual evidence from advocacy-oriented arguments.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 5
+> Moderate claims about grant success, reputation, and research quality unless directly supported.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 6
+> Expand the discussion on implementation risks, such as funding instability, unclear governance, overlap with IT/RDM units, and difficulty in recruiting qualified RSE staff.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---

review_answers/review_2_answers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+# Reviewer Report: Aftab S.
+
+**Verdict:** Not Approved  
+**DOI:** https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188851.r484758  
+**URL:** https://f1000research.com/articles/15-719/v1#referee-response-484758
+
+---
+
+## Abstract
+
+### Comment 1
+> The abstract claims the paper "urges decision makers" but does not state what evidence supports this urging. You should add a one-sentence summary of your survey results or key argument.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 2
+> The phrase "vision of a central RSE unit" is vague. Specify briefly what is new in your vision compared to existing units in the UK or US.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 3
+> You mention "nine core support modules" but do not list them. Add a short list or at least the most important two or three.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Introduction
+
+### Comment 4
+> You define "research software" broadly but then say this definition is "the outcome of a recent discussion." Cite that discussion properly so readers can check it.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 5
+> The distinction between "dedicated RSEs" and "embedded RSEs" is useful but the term "researchers" for non-RSEs is confusing. Consider using "non-RSE researchers" or "domain researchers" instead.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 6
+> You say "This position paper focuses on groups of research software engineers." But the paper is not clear whether you are reporting on existing groups or proposing a new model. Clarify this early.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Motivation for central RSE units
+
+### Comment 7
+> The claim that central RSE units improve "grant success, institutional reputation, and research quality" appears multiple times without strong evidence. You cite only one small survey of 12 units. This is not sufficient. Soften these claims or add more empirical references.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 8
+> Section 2.1 on "Pooling" uses analogies to industry R&D and inhouse consulting. These analogies are helpful but you do not discuss how academic contexts differ from industry (e.g., funding cycles, teaching loads, intellectual property). Add this discussion.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 9
+> Section 2.2.1 compares RSE to Research Data Management. The comparison is reasonable but you assume RDM is already successful. Provide at least one citation showing measurable success of central RDM units in Germany.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 10
+> Section 2.3 on "External expectations" lists many policies and initiatives but does not explain which of these are mandatory versus recommended. This distinction matters for decision makers. Clarify.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Vision
+
+### Comment 11
+> The nine modules are presented as equally important but you later assign "weights" without explaining how weights are determined. Explain the weighting method or remove the weight claim.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 12
+> Module 1 ("Foster a local Network") says central RSE units need "permanent contracts" for deep expertise. But German academic labor laws (WissZeitVG) limit fixed-term contracts. Acknowledge this legal constraint and suggest solutions.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 13
+> Module 3 ("Development services") includes a success story about mobile app development at Manchester. This is only one example. Add a second example from a different discipline (e.g., life sciences or engineering) to show generalizability.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 14
+> Module 5 ("Create a network of institutional partners") discusses IT units, libraries, and HPC groups. Missing is any mention of legal or ethics departments. Software may have licensing or data protection issues. Add this.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 15
+> Module 8 ("Software maintenance service") lists three criteria for maintenance but criterion 3 ("mechanism for selecting projects") is not explained. How should institutions prioritize? Give at least two example prioritization strategies.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Existing implementations
+
+### Comment 16
+> You surveyed only 12 RSE units. This is very small. State clearly in the text that this is a pilot survey and not representative. You mention this in the data availability section but not in the main text. Add a limitation sentence here.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 17
+> Figure 1 compares four units (Jena, Heidelberg, Reading, Princeton). But your text says you received twelve responses. Why show only four? Explain the selection criteria.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 18
+> You identify two archetypes: those with development services and those without. But you did not collect data on unit size. Larger units may offer more services simply because they have more staff. Acknowledge this confounding factor.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Realisation strategy
+
+### Comment 19
+> Section 5.1 lists four funding sources. Source 2 (overhead percentage) proposes using 1% of overhead. Where does this 1% figure come from? Provide a justification or remove the specific number.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 20
+> Section 5.2.1 on "Initial measures" suggests forming a network without dedicated funding. But networking takes staff time. How should institutions pay for this time if no funding exists? Be realistic.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 21
+> Section 5.3 on "Outsourcing" lists disadvantages but admits "this idea so far lacks examples." If there are no examples, why include this section? Either remove it or present it as a speculative thought experiment with a clear disclaimer.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 22
+> Section 5.4 on "Staff acquisition" mentions "RSE master" programs in Berlin, Munich, and Stuttgart. You cite a curated list (reference 60) but do not say whether any graduates from these programs have been hired into central RSE units. Add this if known.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Conclusions
+
+### Comment 23
+> The conclusions repeat claims about "improved funding acquisition" and "enhanced reputational standing" that were not strongly supported earlier. Remove these claims or add direct evidence.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 24
+> You do not discuss risks or failure modes. For example, what happens if a central RSE unit cannot get enough project funding? What if it competes with existing IT or RDM units? Add a short paragraph on risks.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+### Comment 25
+> The final sentence encourages "stable funding and long-term career prospects" but you did not show that such careers exist yet in Germany. Acknowledge that this is aspirational.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## Missing section
+
+### Comment 26
+> The paper has no separate "Limitations" section. This is a major flaw for a position paper that makes strong claims. Add a section after Conclusions or before Data Availability that explicitly lists: small survey size, lack of longitudinal data, focus on Germany only, no cost-benefit analysis, and no comparison to alternative models (e.g., fully decentralized RSE support).
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---