Thanks for your submission. An editor will be soon assigned!

@benoit-girard Could you handle this submission (I'll help with the publication step if necessary)

@rougier : OK, I can do it.

@stephanmg : are you familiar with Neuron? Do you think you could evaluate this work?
@ChristophMetzner : are you available and willing to evaluate this work?

@benoit-girard I would be available and would really like to review this submission, however, I have an ongoing collaboration with Gaute Einevoll, which, I guess, constitutes a conflict of interest. Therefore, I think I have to decline.

@ChristophMetzner I didn't know about that COI. Sorry.
@miladh : are you familiar with Neuron? Do you think you could evaluate this work?

Thanks for asking @benoit-girard, but Gaute Einevoll is my supervisor and I'm working closely with @simetenn in several projects, so I think I also have to decline due to COI.

@stephanmg @gdetor : would you be interested in reviewing this submission?

@apdavison : could you review this submission?

@benoit-girard I'd be happy to.

I have a small potential conflict of interest, as Gaute Einevoll and I both receive funding under the Human Brain Project grant; however we do not collaborate directly (we are in different sub-projects).

Please let me know if this is a problem; otherwise I will go ahead and review the submission.

I tend to think it is not a problem in that case, let's ask the bosses if they agree with me.
@rougier @khinsen : Do you agree?

For me this is not a problem.

@benoit-girard I can review this submission.

Thank you @gdetor you are now reviewer number 1.
@rougier I am waiting for your feedback about @apdavison before validating him as reviewer number 2.

Fine for me as well.

Then @apdavison you are reviewer 2! Thanks!

@apdavison @gdetor : just a gentle reminder... Do you think you could provide a first evaluation mid-January?

Yes, certainly.

@benoit-girard Yes

Dear @apdavison and @gdetor : a gentle reminder...

@benoit-girard All my comments have been addressed properly. I have no further comments. I endorse the publication of this work.

@apdavison Are you satisfied with the authors' reply and modifications?

@benoit-girard I'm afraid I haven't had time to review the changes, but I will do so by the end of this week.

My apologies for the delay. I am very satisfied by the reply and the additional exploration of the remaining discrepancies. Many thanks to the authors for this very nice replication.

Given the positive feedback from both reviewers, the paper is accepted, I will now have to take care of the publishing steps (I may not be able to do it this week...).
@rougier : Is the publishing process as tough as it used to be, or have some steps evolved?

The new process is far more easier (because authors do all the hard work) but it is not yet online. But I can help you on this one if you want (as I promised at the top of this thread 😄).

@benoit-girard Do you need some help with the publishing process

Indeed, what should I begin with (compared to the old procedure) ?

Well, in this specific case, you have to use the old procedure. Sorry for that.

I have begun the process, I am now at the "Rebuild the PDF and check everything is OK" step.
I haven't build a "md" into a pdf in a while, I don't remember how to proceed. Where can I find a description of the process (including the bib processing, which, I vaguely remember, wasn't easy)? I thought it was somewhere in the ReScience repos, but couldn't find it...

nevermind, I found it.

This time, I am really stuck, at the "Merge the rescience branch into master" step.

I tried :
git add tennøe-hodne-haug-weltzien-einevoll-halnes-2018.md
git commit -m "Updated meta data fields"

but then, I don't know what to do... help ! @rougier

$ git checkout master
$ git merge rescience

If the branch is named rescience. Else you can try git branch to check what are the branch in your local repository.

By the way, @simetenn just told me (by email) that there is a small typo in the manuscript:

"The value of the parameter "c" (for NEURON) in Table 1 is written 1.6, but the correct value is 3.18. This mistake is only present in the manuscript".

Can you correct it while editing it ?

@benoit-girard I unlocked the conversation such that authors can comment (about the correction)

@benoit-girard: Just tell me if you want me to submit a commit to this PR with the correction.

I did that:

$ git checkout master
$ git merge rescience

then I modified the md so as to correct the error:

By the way, @simetenn just told me (by email) that there is a small typo in the manuscript:

"The value of the parameter "c" (for NEURON) in Table 1 is written 1.6, but the correct value is 3.18. This mistake is only present in the manuscript".

Can you correct it while editing it ?

but I get this when I try to push:

! [remote rejected] master -> master (permission denied)

This git thing is making me feel helpless once again...

@rougier do I need more access rights to ReScience-Archive, or did I something wrong (again)?

You're right, I just changed your rights (you should have them all on the archives). Sorry for that.

This submission has been accepted for publication.