Interesting material. The distributed work and funding reminds of BRS's bipolar article.
My edits are broken down into small pieces (which makes for a lot of them), to allow detailed explanation of their purposes.
A principle I've kept in mind here (suggested by another reviewer) is that if not-ready review comments would be telling the author just what to do, the reviewer is no more involved by actually doing it than by telling the author to. More intrusive edits would then be weighed against that standard. My most intrusive addition here, imo, is the word "predator" in the final paragraph; in mitigation, that has a certain element of undoing a removal.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Interesting material. The distributed work and funding reminds of BRS's bipolar article.
My edits are broken down into small pieces (which makes for a lot of them), to allow detailed explanation of their purposes.
A principle I've kept in mind here (suggested by another reviewer) is that if not-ready review comments would be telling the author just what to do, the reviewer is no more involved by actually doing it than by telling the author to. More intrusive edits would then be weighed against that standard. My most intrusive addition here, imo, is the word "predator" in the final paragraph; in mitigation, that has a certain element of undoing a removal.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
