[Population Modeling] Population modeling by examples III collaborative paper
Jacob Barhak
jacob.barhak at gmail.com
Sun Jul 9 22:34:58 PDT 2017
Greetings Population Modelers,
SummerSim has started and tomorrow the collaborative paper will be
presented.
Below is a link to the final version of the presentation:
https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4657/SummerSim2017PopMod3_Upload_2017_07_09.pptx
Please feel free to distribute this presentation link and do please use
this material in your classrooms - it is intended to be distributed.
Thanks again to all those who contributed.
Jacob
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Greetings Collaborative paper authors,
>
> You all contributed slides to the joint presentations aimed at SummerSim
> and later to be passed to the dissemination working group.
>
> I was able to assemble a presentation by editing your slides for format.
> You can find the draft online at:
>
> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4656/SummerSim2017PopMod3_Upload_
> 2017_06_18.pptx
>
> Since I made changes in most slides, I would ask that you examine that
> your own slide is in ok and fits well with the other slides.
>
> Unless I get an email from you, I will assume you are ok with any changes
> I made and with the final product. I mostly changed, format, titles, and
> affiliations to be as standard as possible. So please double check me.
>
> Also, if any of you have specific notes they wish to send me to emphasize
> during presentation, please let me know by email and I will add those notes
> to the notes of the slides in the next version.
>
> So if you have an explanation of a certain image that will help me
> present, please send it my way.
>
> Hopefully you will find it in good shape.
>
> Jacob
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Greeting Collaborative paper authors,
>>
>> You can find the final submitted version of the collaborative paper in:
>>
>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4654/PopulationModelin
>> gByExamples3_Submit_2017_06_04.docx
>>
>> I signed the following copyright form on your behalf:
>> http://scs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AuthorsKitForms-Tr
>> ansferOfCopyrightAuthorCert.pdf
>>
>> The paper will be published by ACM Digital Library and IEEE - the latter
>> is new so I know little details, yet I will send you a DOI when I know it.
>>
>> I would like to remind you to send in your slides. Quite a few of you
>> have sent one slide, yet I am still waiting for many more slides - if you
>> have not sent one, please do supply your slide as soon as possible to make
>> assembly easy.
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings Collaborative paper authors,
>>>
>>> This is a gentle reminder for those who participated in the paper to
>>> send one slide for the presentation.
>>>
>>> Remember this presentation will be circulated beyond SummerSim and
>>> online presence. It will be passed to the dissemination working group.
>>>
>>> It would really help if you can send your slides earlier rather than
>>> later.
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good News Collaborative Paper Authors,
>>>>
>>>> The paper got accepted for publication. You will find the updated
>>>> review here:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/public-scientific-re
>>>> views/7lr3pCUgZv4
>>>>
>>>> One reviewer still asks for someone to go over the paper once more for
>>>> grammar. I will appreciate a volunteer since I went through it several
>>>> times by now and may not see any more grammar issues.
>>>>
>>>> At this time, we need to start preparing for presentation and I would
>>>> ask all contributors to send in one slide to describe their work.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please send me a presentation with a single Powerpoint slide
>>>> representing the work you described in the paper.
>>>>
>>>> Please use only a single slide using the following template:
>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/1893/PopModSlideTempla
>>>> te_2015_03_04.pptx
>>>>
>>>> To reduce traffic, do not send files to the list, instead send a
>>>> PowerPoint file directly to me to with the title "SummerSim 2017 Slide"
>>>>
>>>> Please send slides by 15-June. Yet try not to wait that long - it is
>>>> only
>>>> one slide afterall. I will assemble the presentation and upload it for
>>>> your
>>>> inspection afterwards.
>>>>
>>>> The assembled presentation will be presented in SummerSim and
>>>> eventually passed to the dissemination working group that will reuse it for
>>>> teaching, so please no copyrighted or otherwise restricted material -
>>>> consider it creative commons license. We want others to reuse this
>>>> presentation.
>>>>
>>>> Try to include only key elements of your work, preferably in graphics.
>>>> If you have more than 50 words in the slide, then it is too long. Better
>>>> to have a few pictures and even animation if possible. Remember, my ability
>>>> to present your slides is limited, just stick to the very basics. There are
>>>> more than 15 of us, so each slide will have less than a minute to be
>>>> presented.
>>>>
>>>> If you must acknowledge funding, please send exact text in the same
>>>> email outside the slide so I can assemble all of these together at the end
>>>> of the presentation.
>>>>
>>>> To get an idea of presentations we had in the past, you can visit:
>>>>
>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/1897/SpringSim2015PopM
>>>> od_Upload_2015_04_10.pptx
>>>>
>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/1988/PopulationModelli
>>>> ngByExamplesII_SummerSim_2016.pdf
>>>>
>>>> I will really appreciate fast responses here.
>>>>
>>>> Jacob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greetings Collaborative paper authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> A revised version of the paper after second review round was
>>>>> submitted. The revised version is available in:
>>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4652/PopulationModelin
>>>>> gByExamples3_Submit_2017_05_18.docx
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is the response for review for the second round:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>
>>>>> Second Review Round
>>>>>
>>>>> ######################################################################
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas Woolly
>>>>>
>>>>> Response: The manuscript has been updated and is much better for it.
>>>>> Just to clarify though, my name has an e in Woolley. In terms of the
>>>>> rebuttal, I agree that getting everyone together in a digital space is
>>>>> difficult as academics are slow to move. However, the authors do seem to
>>>>> agree with this general sentiment. Thus, could I ask them to add a sentence
>>>>> or two to the discussion section, which specifies the intention of the
>>>>> working group to move (slowly) towards a digital platform rather than
>>>>> requiring such paper that collates the work. Yours, Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ####################
>>>>>
>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for misspelling the name – it was a copy paste error that
>>>>> was corrected in the final manuscript.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for catching it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two sentences were added to the end of the paper indicating that the
>>>>> authors started creating sites online on SimTK. In fact, this was a very
>>>>> good outcome of the review process. It opens the possibility of more
>>>>> centralized mapping of work that will be more accessible that an academic
>>>>> paper. Future effort will be directed in this direction – it is beneficial
>>>>> to all. If this trend grows the reviewer can claim responsibility for
>>>>> starting this – if the reviewer has population modeling colleagues, please
>>>>> let them know about this effort. One intention is to disseminate these
>>>>> papers with the dissemination working group that just formed under IMAG – a
>>>>> centralized web portal would be beneficial.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ####################
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ######################################################################
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Smith?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Response: I am still uncomfortable with the lack of depth in the Carl
>>>>> Asche entry. It's extremely informal, saying things like "Specifically
>>>>> busy" as though this were a tossed-out email, rather than an academic work.
>>>>> I am sympathetic to the page limit, so just delete this one. Also, the
>>>>> reference should be consistent (they're not at present) and different
>>>>> authors should be separated by commas.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One edit: "The order of introduction is arbitrary trying to group by
>>>>> common categories as shown in Table 1." I'm not sure I understand this. Is
>>>>> it arbitrary or is it trying to group by common categories? I would think
>>>>> the latter, so delete the word "arbitrary".
>>>>>
>>>>> ####################
>>>>>
>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>
>>>>> The entry of Carl Asche has been enhanced to present techniques and
>>>>> other minor changes were made to fit the text. Since Carl has some
>>>>> important work with modeling domain knowledge in diabetes and
>>>>> re-hospitalization, it was important to keep his contribution in the paper
>>>>> and an effort was made to add depth to it within space limitation. The
>>>>> reviewer was probably confused by the misplacement of the reference of
>>>>> diabetes survey where hospitalization was mentioned – this was corrected
>>>>> and the references were exchanged and made current. The revised text and
>>>>> references demonstrate the domain knowledge expertise of the researcher and
>>>>> the lab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another entry by Dan Yamin was slightly updated by the contributor –
>>>>> so now the text better reflect the intentions of the contributor post
>>>>> editing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bibliography was inspected and made consistent according to the
>>>>> examples in authors kit – in fact reorganization of the bibliography helped
>>>>> save some space. With some minor changes in other text, it was possible to
>>>>> fit it all in the 12 pages allowed. Other minor changes to the paper were
>>>>> made such as the footer in the first page to indicate the conference name.
>>>>>
>>>>> The order of authors within each category is still arbitrary – yet
>>>>> omitting the word “arbitrary” is probably better - the fix was made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully the chair and reviewers will accept the paper for
>>>>> publication in the current form.
>>>>>
>>>>> ####################
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings Collaborative paper authors,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reviewers returned response for the response for review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can find the revised review in the following link:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/public-scientific-re
>>>>>> views/7lr3pCUgZv4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a nutshell, the reviewers are asking for some more minor
>>>>>> modifications. I will handle those and send the revised version to this
>>>>>> list. This gives a last chance to make minor changes. If any author has any
>>>>>> important minor changes they wish to make in their text or classification,
>>>>>> please let me know by May 15th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thanks for all those who expressed interest in SimTk projects for
>>>>>> your work - I hope more will join to register their projects with the
>>>>>> working group page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greetings to all collaborative paper authors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Following modifications after review, the revised version of the
>>>>>>> paper was submitted to SummerSim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can find the revised version in the following link:
>>>>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4649/PopulationModelin
>>>>>>> gByExamples3_Submit_2017_05_08.docx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below you will find the response to the reviewers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since many changes were made, including many deletions, I will ask
>>>>>>> all contributors to look again at their section and let me know if there is
>>>>>>> any error introduced by mistake. There is still little time to fix small
>>>>>>> things, yet no time for any additions or major modifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully you will all find it in good shape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #################################################################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Response to Review for SummerSim 2017 paper #13 – Population
>>>>>>> Modeling by Examples III
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The response is embedded within the review text below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This paper is hard to review and I'm not really sure it should be a
>>>>>>> paper at all. The paper is an introduction to the work of multiple people,
>>>>>>> at different institutions, around the world. I've no doubt this is very
>>>>>>> important as it provides a one stop location for someone to pick the right
>>>>>>> contact for their questions, problems and collaborations. However, wouldn't
>>>>>>> this better suited to being an updateable webpage? Surely, people's
>>>>>>> institutions, interests and email addresses will evolve over time, whereas
>>>>>>> this article tries to cement the work in time. Equally, having such a
>>>>>>> website would allow people to update their own blurbs, which would ensure
>>>>>>> accuracy. Stemming from this fact is the problem that I can't review the
>>>>>>> science as I am not an expert in the diverse range of subjects that appear.
>>>>>>> Thus, all I am left with is discussing the qualities of the written
>>>>>>> language. Here the paper falters, with troubling prose throughout. For
>>>>>>> example "the Inter Agency Modeling and Analysis Group (IMAG) (IMAG,
>>>>>>> Online), that Is composed of government officers, created working group
>>>>>>> that can be composed of researches worldwide." However, all of the textual
>>>>>>> errors can be fixed after a good proof read. Critically, such errors should
>>>>>>> be the responsibility of the journal's copy editor and not the scientific
>>>>>>> reviewer. In summary: a useful idea, which is presented in the wrong
>>>>>>> medium. Yours, Thomas Woolly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tomas is absolutely correct. It would be great if all modelers will
>>>>>>> centralize in one location and create living web pages with links to
>>>>>>> possible web pages. However, it is not straightforward possibly because of
>>>>>>> academic culture that is still rewarded by publications. Even collecting
>>>>>>> this amount of contributions every year takes a lot of effort. So although
>>>>>>> not ideal, it may be the best that can be done to help a group with
>>>>>>> overlapping interests come together. And I thank the reviewer for
>>>>>>> recognizing the importance of bringing this group together. If you check
>>>>>>> the previous papers this group produces you will see some evolution. The
>>>>>>> first paper just brought a bunch of modelers together. The second paper
>>>>>>> actually added a classification, due to a request by a reviewer. After this
>>>>>>> review, the folk in the mailing list were asked if they are willing to join
>>>>>>> a web portal and create projects. So in the long run the review may
>>>>>>> influence researcher to go in that direction. And following this response a
>>>>>>> suggestion was posted to our mailing list for folk to join the SimTk model
>>>>>>> repository. However, for the mean time I request that the reviewer accepts
>>>>>>> the importance of mapping the field and accepts the revised version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second review:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) It is interesting to read about the multiple areas of population
>>>>>>> modeling - microscopic and macroscopic scales, theory and computer
>>>>>>> simulation, implications of the modeling results to mathematical modelling
>>>>>>> and computer simulation and the areas of biology that are under study.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reviewer is interested. This is encouraging.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) I suggest that each section start with one clear sentence that
>>>>>>> states how their contributors work is related to population modelling. This
>>>>>>> was not always clear from the outset.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The paper was revised to include a description sentence for each
>>>>>>> entry. This is a good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) There are several grammar issues. In particular, the tense of the
>>>>>>> first sentence is not always the same. The result is that the document
>>>>>>> doesn't flow very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the reviewer is correct. This was improved. The text was
>>>>>>> originally adapted from multiple contributions that the authors sent to the
>>>>>>> mailing list – there was no binding format with regards to the text and the
>>>>>>> editor tried to change only what is absolutely needed change to avoid
>>>>>>> planting wrong intention during modifications – sometimes authors choose
>>>>>>> certain format on purpose. Several correction passes were made and
>>>>>>> hopefully the reviewer will be content with the result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) I like the table. I suggest that the table be introduced before
>>>>>>> the descriptions, providing a Table of Contents type map of the material
>>>>>>> that follows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a good idea and the paper was rewritten to reflect this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5) Perhaps the order of the contributors could be modified to a more
>>>>>>> logical sequence. For example, by main area of research focus. If this is
>>>>>>> not possible to do, then perhaps alphabetical order would be okay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jane Heffernan York University
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This change was made to make the map show clusters – the order now
>>>>>>> is such that the map is visually pleasing with the most prevalent category
>>>>>>> of public health first. Thanks for the suggestion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Third review:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although this is an overview of the field, it should still strive to
>>>>>>> have academic depth. Publicising the work of contributors is nice, but the
>>>>>>> entries should also be informative. This is not always true. In particular,
>>>>>>> I suggest either deleting or significantly expanding the entry from Carl
>>>>>>> Asche, which adds almost nothing. Overall, it should be streamlined and
>>>>>>> sentences written out in full.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Smith? The University of Ottawa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESPONSE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl Asche sent some more text that was added, yet adding more text
>>>>>>> was a challenge since the paper size limit is 12 pages. So multiple changes
>>>>>>> were made to accommodate the reviews – hopefully the revised version is
>>>>>>> found in better shape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ####################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Jacob Barhak <
>>>>>>> jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings to all collaborative paper authors,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The review for our paper came back and is available on:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/public-scientific-re
>>>>>>>> views/7lr3pCUgZv4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Generally the comments were editorial and grammar related. I will
>>>>>>>> prepare a response. Yet I will suggest that all authors take a look. If
>>>>>>>> you want to make changes in your text, please send me your revised text in
>>>>>>>> the next week until May 6th. I will appreciate help with reviewing grammar
>>>>>>>> of the final version if anyone can volunteer time in a week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, I am interested in the response of the first reviewer Thomas
>>>>>>>> Woolly. How many of you are open to creating a free SimTK user
>>>>>>>> account and adding your project there so we can create a live paper as
>>>>>>>> requested?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reviewer has a good idea. Hopefully we can at least partially
>>>>>>>> accommodate it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2017 12:27 AM, "Jacob Barhak" <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Greeting to all collaborative paper authors,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some of you sent some comments and we had one more entry, so I was
>>>>>>>>> able to revised the version before submission. You can find the submitted
>>>>>>>>> version in:
>>>>>>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4645/PopulationModelin
>>>>>>>>> gByExamples3_Submit_2017_04_17.docx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The paper will now go to review and I will get back to you once it
>>>>>>>>> is received. - again many thanks for those who contributed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Jacob Barhak <
>>>>>>>>> jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Greetings population modelers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With many of you submitting introductions about their work, it
>>>>>>>>>> was possible to assemble a third review paper that originated from this
>>>>>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The paper was edited from introductions by the following
>>>>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bishal Paudel
>>>>>>>>>> Carl Asche
>>>>>>>>>> Vivek Balaraman
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Thomas
>>>>>>>>>> Nathan Geffen
>>>>>>>>>> Pawel Topa
>>>>>>>>>> Katherine Ogurtsova
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff Shrager
>>>>>>>>>> Christopher Fonnesbeck
>>>>>>>>>> Resit Akcakaya
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Templ
>>>>>>>>>> Amit Huppert
>>>>>>>>>> Marco Ajelli
>>>>>>>>>> Dan Yamin
>>>>>>>>>> Leandro Watanabe
>>>>>>>>>> Ram Pendyala
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If your name is not on the list and you contributed an
>>>>>>>>>> introduction, please contact me - I did my best to assemble all those who
>>>>>>>>>> contributed introductions publicly, yet if any changes are needed, now is
>>>>>>>>>> the time to correct me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For those listed above, please have a look at the paper and if
>>>>>>>>>> any fixes are needed, please let me know. I had to cut text and references
>>>>>>>>>> to fit space and maintain format - so please double check me. Especially
>>>>>>>>>> check your own section and your line in the table that maps the work. Do
>>>>>>>>>> check I spelled your name correctly and affiliation is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The draft paper can be located at the following link:
>>>>>>>>>> https://simtk.org/docman/view.php/962/4644/PopulationModelin
>>>>>>>>>> gByExamples3_Upload_2017_04_16.docx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I plan to submit the paper to SummerSim tomorrow April 17th for
>>>>>>>>>> review. If anyone sees anything critical before then, let me know in the
>>>>>>>>>> next day - otherwise there will be time to make changes as reviews come
>>>>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, thanks for all those who took the time to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://simtk.org/pipermail/popmodwkgrpimag-news/attachments/20170710/2a2ff96e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the PopModWkGrpIMAG-news
mailing list