Reviewer response for version 1
The workflowr package, available from CRAN for 1.5 years, has already demonstrated itself to be a valuable contribution to improving the reproducibility of scientific analyses. 
This paper does a thorough job setting out the rationale, design, and implementation of the workflowr package. 
It is clear that the authors have spent considerable time thinking about some of the key challenges of this endeavour, learning about best practises, getting feedback from users, and implementing these using 4 key technologies/features:
- Version control.
- Literate programming.
- Automatic checks and safeguards to improve code reproducibility.
- Sharing code and results via a website.
The paper is clearly written and I am happy to approve the article in its current form.
Some minor comments, queries, and corrections are given below:
- Figure caption 1: '"analyses" folder' is '"analysis" folder' in the figure.
- p5: Re workflowr executing code in a clean session. 
My impression was that rendering Rmarkdown documents, at least when done by clicking the 'knit' button in RStudio, was already run in a separate process. 
But I may be mistaken and perhaps this is different from running `rmarkdown::render_site()`?
- Regarding published sites. 
Not all scientific analyses can be made public, particularly in the early stages. 
Some discussion of options available for private/protected hosting would be valuable.
- I'm a little wary of relying on raw.githack.com for hosting past versions of the webpages. 
For example, what if the service becomes unavailable? 
Does or could workflowr support other hosting services?
- p11: Is the idea of a 'centralized workflowr project website' like that of the homepage https://bookdown.org/ or for an organisation/user to share their personal workflowr projects?
Structure
Other
Strength
Strength
Recap
Recap
Recap
Recap
Strength
Structure
Weakness
Structure
Other
Todo
Structure
Other
Todo
Weakness
Other
Todo
Todo