Add note for editors that authors should record their responses

booknews.Rmd

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 
 ## Dev version
 
+- 2026-06-25, add note for editors that authors should record their responses (#1021, `@robitalec`)
 - 2026-06-12, clarify expections for volunteer form for eds and revs (#1015; thansk to @joelnitta)
 - 2026-06-25, clarify manual removal of holding label (#1020, `@robitalec`).
-
 - 2026-05-21, better document reviewer search in Airtable (#1009, #1010).
 - 2026-06-12, add mention of testit (#1014).
 - 2026-05-29, link in reviewer guide to stats template for stats reviews (#1012)

softwarereview_author.Rmd

@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ If you intend to submit an accompanying manuscript for your package, rOpenSci ha
 
 - An [editor](#editors) will review your submission within 5 business days and respond with next steps. The editor may assign the package to reviewers, request that the package be updated to meet minimal criteria before review, or reject the package due to lack of fit or overlap.
 - If your package meets minimal criteria, the editor will assign  1-3 reviewers. They will be asked to provide reviews as comments on your issue within 3 weeks.
-- We ask that you respond to reviewers' comments within 2 weeks of the last-submitted review, but you may make updates to your package or respond at any time. Your response should include a link to the updated [NEWS.md](#news) of your package. Here is [an author response example](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/160#issuecomment-355043656). Once the response is commited, [submit it using the bot](bot_cheatsheet.html#submit-response-to-reviewers). We encourage ongoing conversations between authors and reviewers. See the [reviewing guide](#reviewerguide) for more details.
+- We ask that you respond to reviewers' comments within 2 weeks of the last-submitted review, but you may make updates to your package or respond at any time. Your response should include a link to the updated [NEWS.md](#news) of your package. Here is [an author response example](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/160#issuecomment-355043656). Once the response is commited, [submit it using the bot](#submit-response-to-reviewers). We encourage ongoing conversations between authors and reviewers. See the [reviewing guide](#reviewerguide) for more details.
 - Any time package changes are likely to alter the results of [the automated `pkgcheck` checks](https://docs.ropensci.org/pkgcheck), authors can request a re-check with the command, `@ropensci-review-bot check package`.
 - Please notify us immediately if you are no longer able to maintain your package or to respond to reviews. You will then be expected to either retract a submission, or to find alternative package maintainers. You can also discuss maintenance issues in the rOpenSci slack workspace.
 - Once your package is approved, we will provide further instructions about the transfer of your repository to the rOpenSci repository.

softwarereview_editor.Rmd

@@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ In general, at least one reviewer should have prior reviewing experience, and of
 - Upon each review being submitted,
   - Write a comment thanking the reviewer in your own words.
   - Record the review by typing a new comment `@ropensci-review-bot submit review <review-url> time <time in hours>`, like in [this example](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/705#issuecomment-2984012477).
-- Upon changes being made, change the review status tag to `5/awaiting-reviewer-response`, and request that reviewers indicate approval with the [reviewer approval template](#approval2template).
+- Upon changes being made, ensure the author [submits their response using the bot](#submit-response-to-reviewers), change the review status tag to `5/awaiting-reviewer-response`, and request that reviewers indicate approval with the [reviewer approval template](#approval2template).
 - If the authors intend to submit an accompanying [Applications](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/2041210X/features/applicationpapers) manuscript at [Methods in Ecology and Evolution](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2041210X), indicate to the authors can submit their manuscript after the review has been completed. 
 
 #### Answering reviewers' questions {#reviewersupport}

softwarereview_editor.es.Rmd

@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ En general, al menos una debe tener experiencia previa en revisiones y, por supu
 - Una vez enviada cada revisión,
   - Escribe un comentario de agradecimiento a las personas que revisaron con tus propias palabras.
   - Registra la reseña escribiendo un nuevo comentario `@ropensci-review-bot submit review <review-url> time <time in hours>` como en [este ejemplo](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/705#issuecomment-2984012477).
-- Una vez realizados los cambios, cambia la etiqueta de estado de revisión a `5/awaiting-reviewer-response` y pide a las personas a cargo de la revisión que indiquen su aprobación con la [plantilla de aprobación de revisión]{#approval2template}.
+- Una vez realizados los cambios, asegurate de que quien presentó el paquete [envíe su respuesta mediante el bot](#submit-response-to-reviewers), cambia la etiqueta de estado de revisión a `5/awaiting-reviewer-response` y pide a las personas a cargo de la revisión que indiquen su aprobación con la [plantilla de aprobación de revisión](#approval2template).
 - Si quien presentó el paquete tiene la intención de presentar un [artículo científico](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/2041210X/features/applicationpapers) en [*Methods in Ecology and Evolution*](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2041210X), indícale que pueden presentarlo una vez finalizada la revisión. 
 
 #### Responder a las preguntas del equipo de revisión {#reviewersupport}

softwarereview_editor.pt.Rmd

@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ Em geral, pelo menos um(a) revisor(a) deve ter experiência prévia em revisão
 - Após o envio de cada revisão,
   - Escreva um comentário agradecendo o(a) revisor(a), com suas próprias palavras.
   - Registre a revisão escrevendo um novo comentário `@ropensci-review-bot submit review <review-url> time <time in hours>` como [neste exemplo](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/705#issuecomment-2984012477).
-- Quando as alterações forem feitas, altere a etiqueta de status da revisão para `5/awaiting-reviewer-response` e solicite que os(as) revisores(as) indiquem a aprovação usando o [modelo de aprovação de revisão](#approval2template).
+- Quando as alterações forem feitas, garanta que as pessoas autoras [enviem sua resposta utilizando o bot](#submit-response-to-reviewers), alterem a etiqueta de status da revisão para `5/awaiting-reviewer-response` e solicite que os(as) revisores(as) indiquem a aprovação usando o [modelo de aprovação de revisão](#approval2template).
 - Se as pessoas autoras tiverem a intenção de enviar um manuscrito de acompanhamento do tipo [*Applications*](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/2041210X/features/applicationpapers) no periódico [Methods in Ecology and Evolution](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2041210X), indique que o envio do manuscrito pode ser feito após a conclusão da revisão. 
 
 #### Respondendo às perguntas dos(as) revisores(as) {#reviewersupport}