note on R1 #2 response

sc-principles/rebuttal/rebuttal.tex

@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ \section*{Reviewer \#1 (Tobias Kuhn):}
 \asnote{Perhaps we should be adding a short paragraph outlining how we believe that ultimately academic publishing should be moving towards sharing all of the products of researcher activity. This work is primarily about making software a citable entity which is just one part of a much larger change in the scholarly ecosystem.}
 
 \niemnote{Dan, can you do this?} \katznote{I was hoping Arfon might do this one}
+\niemnote{I think we have something along these lines now at the end of section 3, although perhaps could say more.}
 
 \item \textbf{Reviewer comment:}
 \emph{This paper doesn't have an experimental design in the strict sense, as it is more of a position paper than a research article. The PeerJ guidelines state that ``the submission should clearly define the research question'', which is currently not the case for this paper. However, I see a research question between the lines, which could be phrased as ``how can citations be applied to software products to account for their increasing importance in scientific research?''. By making such a research question explicit, the PeerJ requirements can be met.}