Minor improvements

README.md

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ If you are interested in joining the board and contributing to open science at E
 
 Throughout the whole communication process, the Open Science co-Chairs serve as mediator between the authors and the Open Science Board members in a, for now, single blind process.
 
-The [Frequently Asked Questions](FAQ.md) provides additional information.
+The [Frequently Asked Questions](#faq) provides additional information.
 
 ## EMSE papers with the Open Science Badge
 

review-criteria.md

@@ -1,47 +1,41 @@
-EMSE Open science - Evaluation Criteria
+EMSE Open Science - Evaluation Criteria
 =======================
 
 Authors: the EMSE open science board, see
 <https://github.com/emsejournal/openscience/>
 
-This document contains the points that will be evaluated by the open science reviewer. It can be considered as the review template. 
-
+This document contains the points that will be evaluated by the open science reviewer. It can be considered as the review template.
 
 Is the replication package?
 --------
 
-
 Downloadable behind a public URL?
 
--   Does the data and code lie behind a single URL[? (Recommendation: it
-    should be the case)]{.c2}
+- Does the data and code lie behind a single URL (Recommendation: Yes)?
 
 Archived?
 
--   Is the replication package hosted on an persistent,
-    archived repository? (Recommendation: even the submitted version
-    should be hosted on a archived repository, such as [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org/) or [archive.org](https://archive.org/)
+- Is the replication package hosted on a persistent, archived repository? (Recommendation: Even the submitted version should be hosted on an archived repository, such as [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org/) or [archive.org](https://archive.org/)
 
 Documented?
 
--   Is the replication package properly documented?
+- Is the replication package properly documented?
 
-    -   does the replication package contain an inventory of artifacts (files and folders)?
-    -   are the used file formats documented?
-    -   are the naming conventions documented?    
+- does the replication package contain an inventory of artifacts (files and folders)?
+- are the used file formats documented?
+- are the naming conventions documented?
 
 Complete?
 
--   Does the replication package contain everything required to understand and/or recompute all data, numbers and figures presented in the paper?
+- Does the replication package contain everything required to understand and/or recompute all data, numbers, and figures presented in the paper?
 
 Exercisable? (if the paper contains results based on code)
 
--   Does the code compile and execute given the instructions in the package?
--   Does the code only depend on publicly-available modules and libraries?
+- Does the code compile and execute given the instructions in the package?
+- Does the code only depend on publicly available modules and libraries?
 
 Licensed?
 
--   Does the replication package contain an appropriate license for the code or data?
-    -   We strongly encourage that the replication package contains a license.
-    -   The Open Science board suggest the CC-BY version 4.0 which is is suitable for data
-
+- Does the replication package contain an appropriate license for the code or data?
+- We strongly encourage the replication package to contain a license.
+- The Open Science board suggests the CC-BY version 4.0, which is is suitable for data