Fix up REFs

[CaptainSifff]

All over the paper there are numerous REF instances missing.
I list here some (line numbers relative to the main branch tex code):

• 38
• 39
• 59 (Why is RS different than data)
• 61
• 65 (RS Policies)
• 103 Charite
• 107 (low quality)
• 113 (update: was 119)
• 136 SuccessStory Carpentries https://carpentries.org/testimonials/
• 155 no ref?
• 160
• 171 welcome trust or others? (update: commented out)
• 172 CHORUS? Nature? (update: gone)
• 133 apples to apples?
• 253
• 254
• 255 (update: was 262)
• 263 Code Clinic
• 268 (update: was 280)
• 300 (update: was 311)
• 343 twor refs , github and zenodo

All missing items reflect tex-line numbers as of 25.04.24 of branch main.

[dokempf]

Unfortunately, the above mentioned line numbers are slowly diverging, but you can always find them by looking for REF in the document.

[dokempf]

@jlinx started fixing some of these in #26.

[jngrad]

I can work on that.

[CaptainSifff]

I've updated the line numbers.

[fiveop]

I updated the line numbers based on the changes of two weeks ago.

[CaptainSifff]

OK, a new list of missing REFS as of 12.12.24:

• 100: \todo{Does that exist in reality? Isn’t it just that people, on average, stay longer?}
• 2x 194: In addition, as dedicated DMPs have become mandatory in several funding...
• 296 : RSE services and are offered by almost all RSE units already established
• 309 : improved proposal acceptance rates can be expected
• 341 : Notre-Dame