[Vp-integration-subgroup] Paper frontiers

[Jacob Barhak]

Hi Gilberto,


Please keep all these conversations public. The idea is to keep as much
communications as transparent as possible and we archive those - so I ccd
the mailing lists.

And yes, you will be getting an organized response letter for the reviewers
soon. I was traveling in the last few days and could not sit in front of a
computer.

And yes the deadline is near, yet I think that we will first get approval
from reviewers before we run an approval run among authors so assembling
the response will possible as long as there will be no objections to the
communications. So please keep communications public.

I will do my best to integrate to your comments. Thank you.

        Jacob







On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, 11:02 Gilberto Gonzalez-Parra <
gilberto.gonzalezparra at nmt.edu> wrote:

> Hi Jacob,
>
> Happy new year.
>
> I will just email you since there is a lot of information on the emails
> and I think it is probably better that you prepare the response letter for
> the reviewers (with the suggestion of the authors)  and at the end all the
> authors read it and approve it.
>
> In general I think the response letter (especially for reviewer 2) should
> have specific or focused answers to address his concerns about *clarity
> on the intention of the discussion*.
>
> Regarding point 8. (You answered). I have this additional phrase that you
> can mix it with your answer and maybe take some part to add it to the
> manuscript.
>
> "We agree with the reviewer that  in general complex models would suffer
> more from a lack of reproducibility. The idea that we wanted to express
> is that computational biomedical models are less likely to be deterministic
> since the biological processes are more affected by random factors and
> therefore usually their computer simulations are not reproducible in a
> strict sense. For instance, models based on stochastic processes are not
> strictly reproducible. However, the mean of the stochastic process should
> be relatively reproducible. We changed the text to improve the clarity of
> this idea."
>
> Regarding "*13. TBD - Reviewer 2 asks to handle the Model Application and
> Implementation Barriers section*. We should decide what to do there, the
> section may need expansion since the ideas there are solid, yet the section
> is short so perhaps enhancing it makes better sense. I am open to
> suggestions"
>
> The reviewer suggested removing this section (Model Application and
> Implementation Barriers). However, I think this section is very related
> to the last word of the title of the article (utility). In addition, if
> models are not reproducible the likelihood to be widely used is low. I can
> add some phrases for that particular section (or send it to you) .
>
> Best,
>
> PS: I received an email that says the deadline is the 7th, so as you
> mentioned answers and new text should be focused on questions addressed by
> the reviewers and  try to avoid long discussions/text.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Gilberto C. Gonzalez-Parra, Ph.D in Applied Mathematics.
> Faculty of the Mathematics Department
> New Mexico Tech, NM, USA.
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-integration-subgroup/attachments/20220102/ab4f1e90/attachment.html>