<div dir="ltr"><div>Greeting contributors,</div><div><br></div><div>Below is an email James Glazier sent yesterday - he did not reply all, yet I think this should be made public. </div><div><br></div><div>James, we were clear about the contributors at the end of the manuscript - we can certainly add a disclaimer. I changed the title draft and added a disclaimer sentence after the contributors list in the draft. </div><div><br></div><div>When submitted to Cureus the names of the contributors were used as authors so it was a non-issue. If you choose to submit to iScience you can do the same. You still owe the group an answer if you choose to go in that direction or we reopen a venue. And BioArXiv was banned by Sheriff, so we cannot go there anyway unless he removes is objection. </div><div><br></div><div>Also note that I got a response from Cureus editor to my query about the rejection. In short he is open to resubmission after revisions - his topic editor found the paper confusing. However, I asked that he provides a proper review - the amount of work invested in formatting alone deserves a proper review rather than a laconic answer. If we get proper review, I suggest considering this option. In the mean time I suggest we move forward considering other alternatives. </div><div><br></div><div>I do ask we move forward fast - the value of the paper is significant already and discussions on style will delay it and reduce the impact.</div><div><br></div><div>Hopefully we can move this forward quickly. </div><div><br></div><div> Jacob</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:52 PM James A Glazier <<a href="mailto:jaglazier@gmail.com">jaglazier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Jacob:</p>
<p>Reinhard and I have reviewed the document you say that you
circulated in your email below. If that is indeed the document
that you submitted, there is a critical issue that will need to be
addressed. The paper currently says it is written "by the WG." It
was indeed written by several members of the WG, but since it was
not approved by all members of the WG, you can't say that it is
"by the WG," which implies endorsement by all members. My comment
approving the draft was based on the substantive content of the
draft. I did not realize that you would present it as "by the WG"
instead of with a normal author list and affiliations. It should
also not be posted in its current form on biorxiv or any other
venue without a proper author list. If it is currently posted
anywhere, the version will have to be updated to remove the
implied endorsement by the WG.<br>
</p>
<p>We can discuss with you appropriate ways to credit the working
group.<br>
</p>
<p>JAG<br>
</p>
<div>On 4/26/2021 7:40 PM, Jacob Barhak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Sorry James,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This was a clear cut rejection upfront - declared as final
decision. The editor is checking what happened - it is not
what you think - there is history there - I quoted the editor
his own words from last year and the response practically
contradicts his words - there is a problem here and it is not
with the paper. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The paper has sufficient information to be worth publishing
as a review - if academic journals do not see this, the
problem is with them. This is not rushed work - and two days
were invested into formatting to fit the venue - this is not
raw material - it has been processed. I deserve peer review
and this was denied. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>James - I proved once that the academic publication system
is not working by submitting one paper to and just jumping
from journal to journal until publication - almost in original
form - the process took around 4 years and around 9 Journals -
this is how I learned that the system is broken and also
learned that that some venues are more problematic that
others- Elsevier and PLOS were specifically problematic and
hence I avoid them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To move things forward, please just decide if you want to
submit it to iScience or let us elect another journal. It will
be faster and better that way. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:39
PM James A Glazier <<a href="mailto:jaglazier@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaglazier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Jacob:</p>
<p>The issue was not one of formatting in a technical
sense, but rather that the material in the draft was not
sufficiently integrated. The editor specifically mentioned
that we call the document a white paper in the text, when
it should be called an article and correctly noted that it
looked like the report of a discussion panel rather than
an article. <br>
</p>
<p>Ultimately, this response means that turning the current
draft into something publishable will be more work. It
will have to be integrated more carefully and duplicate
materials and inconsistencies eliminated. You need to
decide if this effort is worthwhile for you.</p>
<p>I expect that almost any journal will respond similarly.<br>
</p>
<p>JAG<br>
</p>
<div>On 4/26/2021 4:27 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings white paper contributors,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cureus returned an answer regarding the white paper
- they declined the submission - in short the
rejection is based on style and journal scope. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since I used the tools provided by the Journal to
do the formatting, especially of the references - I am
confused - I will write the editor, yet I suggest we
move on to the next voted selection of iScience. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will start the process quickly and hopefully we
will have a better response this time.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>#### CureUS response ####</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>Dear authors,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we
must decline this article because its practical
utility to the medical community is unclear. The
overall impression one gets from the article is
that it has been written more in the style of a
colloquial summary of a panel discussion than a
review. This impression is further confirmed by
the fact that the article refers to itself twice
as a white paper. In addition, little attempt
has been made to adhere to the Cureus author
guide (<a href="https://www.cureus.com/author_guide" target="_blank">https://www.cureus.com/author_guide</a>).
Specifically, author affiliations contain
acronyms, the subheadings are not in the
sentence case, spaces and bulleted lists have
been used haphazardly throughout the article,
and reference formatting is almost nonexistent.
<br>
<br>
We would encourage you to submit your next
article to Cureus provided it falls within the
scope of the journal. Thanks for your time.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 22, 2021
at 4:50 AM Jacob Barhak <<a href="mailto:jacob.barhak@gmail.com" target="_blank">jacob.barhak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings White paper contributors,<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>Since no objection was raised the paper was
just submitted to Cureus as previously elected.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You will find an updated version after changes
necessary for submission were implemented in this
link:</div>
<div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The changes were mostly minor typos and
reference management - a few references needed
correction and one was deleted since it no longer
showed any relevant information. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>to give you all perspective - only
formatting and handling of references towards
publication in the necessary format took 2 work
days dedicated for this alone. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So all those who want to add anything to the
paper to be considered post review, I urge you to:</div>
<div>1. submit any changes now - do not wait - once
the review is returned no changes or additions
will be considered and my experience is that
Cureus provides review rapidly, so time is
limited. </div>
<div>2. If you add references, please provide a DOI
/ link to help process those. And please avoid
adding many references - processing those takes a
long time.</div>
<div>3. Do not send changes to me alone using reply
- please use REPLY ALL so everyone will see the
discussion - we want to be as transparent as
possible </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope for a quick review process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 16,
2021 at 6:08 PM Jacob Barhak <<a href="mailto:jacob.barhak@gmail.com" target="_blank">jacob.barhak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings white paper
contributors<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>The voting period on the venue has ended
and the selected venue we will send the
white paper to is Cureus.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Rice and myself voted for that venue
and will cover the publication fees. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In case of any issue with this venue we
will move to iScience that James Gazier
voted for.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The paper will need formatting to fit the
venue - it handles references in a
specific way. However, I intend to mostly
cut and paste the text in this version -
without change:</div>
<div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The process we went through ensures we
reach a level of consensus and that
the manuscript can be legally submitted on
behalf of you all. If anyone has any strong
objections to stop the submission process,
please stop now. Otherwise I will start the
submission process next week. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please remember this is a large team with
many people so there will be compromises.
Moreover, the paper will undergo review and
we will have to make changes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>During the writing process I presented
some deadlines and denied contributions
that happened after the deadline was over. I
know Tomas Halikar wanted to contribute and
now Jim Saluka wants to contribute. I also
know John Gennari schedule prevented him
from properly reviewing the paper and I know
that Sheriff asked for several
modifications. All this can be corrected
when the paper gets reviewed and we get the
review - we will then open the paper for
modifications and potentially other
contributions. However, the time then will
be limited, so to conserve time, I suggest
that those interested in changes or
additions, continue the discussion in
parallel to the formal submission process. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cureus review process is typically quick
compared to many venues I encountered in the
past. Once the paper comes back from review
we will have limited time to respond, so to
conserve time I will consider only text that
we submitted and contributions.modifications
made until that time. So if you have any
important additions, please create your own
copy of the document and publicly share the
link with these mailing lists. Similar to
what Sheriff did. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So please do not stop discussion on the
paper - As Jonathan Karr suggested, we may
have different versions suitable for
different venues so your contributions are
valuable - however, for the sake of getting
our work published I ask that we do
things in a timely manner. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again, if you have things to communicate
about the paper - do not wait until review
is back - it will be too late then - instead
comment now so your contributions can be
considered when post review modifications
start. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope we have a fast review and can make
this work amplified by Cureus soon.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu,
Apr 15, 2021 at 7:13 PM Jacob Barhak <<a href="mailto:jacob.barhak@gmail.com" target="_blank">jacob.barhak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings Contributors,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since there are only a few hours
before the voting period ends, I will
vote to break a tie between
CureuUs and iScience.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I was about to abstain, yet it
seems the tie needs to be broken
distinctively. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will vote for Cureus. My reasons
are:</div>
<div>- I am familiar with this venue
submission process</div>
<div>- the venue has opened up to allow
more references - thus dismissing my
original remark on it</div>
<div>- I will be the person
handling submission and it will save
me time to submit somewhere familiar. </div>
<div> - The review process in this venue
is relatively fast. </div>
<div>- It has an option for rushed
pubmed central publication</div>
<div>- the open publication costs are
reasonable compared to many
other venues</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Unless 3 other people will vote for
another venue in the next few hours,
it seems this is the venue that the
paper will be submitted to for review.
However, things may change. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John and I will split the
publication costs since we both voted
on this venue. If anyone else wants
to split costs, feel free to publicly
vote for this venue - otherwise it
will be John and myself.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please note that there are a
few more hours to vote - a bit less
than 6 hours from the time of this
email - if you support another
conclusion for a venue, you are
welcome to vote.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:03 AM Jacob
Barhak <<a href="mailto:jacob.barhak@gmail.com" target="_blank">jacob.barhak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Greetings white paper
contributors,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Please vote on a
venue for the paper. There are
less than two days to vote to
influence the submission venue. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We had 2 votes by
now <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Cureus by John Rice</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">iScience</span> by
James Glazier</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">John Rice was
first, yet did not reply to all
as requested and sent me the email
- I forwarded his vote to the list
first. James was the first that
replied to all, so technically he
is the first valid vote. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So currently there
is a tie that should be broken by
first vote which is open to
interpretation. Since time is
running out, I suggest people
choose to make the choice
distinctive, otherwise I will vote
to break the tie and was hoping to
avoid voting since I had a lot of
influence already and wanted to
yield control. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So please, if you
have a preference on venue,
please vote for one venue by 1am
CDT April 16th. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I hope we have a
conclusive decision. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"> Jacob</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 17:17 James
Glazier <<a href="mailto:jaglazier@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaglazier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">iScience
<div>James A. Glazier</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon,
Apr 12, 2021 at 12:40 PM
Jacob Barhak <<a href="mailto:jacob.barhak@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">jacob.barhak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings
White paper
Contributors,<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>This is your chance
to decide on the venue.
If you name is on this
list, please take a few
minutes anv vote for the
venue:</div>
<div>Jonathan Karr<br>
Rahuman Sheriff<br>
James Osborne<br>
Gilberto Gonzalez Parra<br>
Eric Forgoston<br>
Ruth Bowness<br>
Yaling Liu<br>
Robin Thompson<br>
Winston Garira <br>
Marcella Torres<br>
Hana M. Dobrovolny<br>
Tingting Tang<br>
William Waites<br>
James Glazier<br>
James R. Faeder<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Currently one vote
was cast and unless
there will be more
votes, the venue voted
for will be chosen. So
if you have a strong
preference, this is your
chance to influence the
publication venue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You will find
eligible venues below as
well as additional
details.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I look forward to
your votes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at
7:04 PM John Rice <<a href="mailto:john.rice@noboxes.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">john.rice@noboxes.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">No
objection to any but
will VOTE CUREUS.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My
understanding it
was created to
provide a peer
reviewed open
source indexed
journal that could
accommodate new
forms of papers
and new relevant
topical areas.
Good timing for
them lifting the
limit on
references, so
assume this paper
could be submitted
in current form
subject only to
reviewers’
response. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Don’t know that
it has a model
credibility
related topic
section yet.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Typed
with two thumbs
on my iPhone.
(757) 318-0671
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>“Upon
this gifted
age, in its
dark hour,</div>
<div>Rains
from the sky a
meteoric
shower</div>
<div>Of facts
. . . they lie
unquestioned,
uncombined.</div>
<div>Wisdom
enough to
leech us of
our ill</div>
<div>Is daily
spun; but
there exists
no loom</div>
<div>To weave
it into
fabric.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>–Edna St.
Vincent
Millay,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On Apr 8, 2021,
at 01:23, Jacob
Barhak <<a href="mailto:jacob.barhak@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">jacob.barhak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Greeting White
paper
contributors,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The old
Thread that
contained
discussions
towards creations and
approval of
the white
paper have
become too
long, so I
started a new
maling
thread. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can
find the old
discussion
thread here:</div>
<div><a href="https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/2021-April/000052.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/2021-April/000052.html</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To
summarize, we
have reached a
point where 17
authors
approved the
following
version for
submission,
pending some
minor changes
like
spelling and
grammar correction.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To avoid
any confusion
- here is the
paper version
we approved is
here:</div>
<div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At this
point we need
to select a
venue to
submit the
paper to. Here
is a short
list I
collected
after
incorporating
all the
suggestions
and removed
all venues
that had any
objections. To
your
convenience I
added
additional
notes form
personal
knowledge - I
did not look
at issues such
as publication
fees for open
access -
different
venues may
have different
rules and may
require some
additional
investment, so
please look at
the venue you
are choosing
and learn the
limitations/benefits before you vote: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is
the short
list:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Cureus -
will require
cutting out
some
references due
to limitation</li>
<li>Nature -
if you vote
for this venue
please specify
flavour such
as Nature
Scientific
Reports</li>
<li>Science</li>
<li>Briefings
in
Bioinformatics</li>
<li>Trends in
Biotechnology
- requires
distilling the
paper</li>
<li>Journal of
The Royal
Society
Interface<br>
</li>
<li>Annual
Review of
Public Health<br>
</li>
<li>BMJ</li>
<li>Annual
Review of
Biomedical
Engineering<br>
</li>
<li>F1000research
- if you vote
for this this
venue please
specify Gateway
/ Collection <br>
</li>
<li>iScience</li>
<li>bulletin
of
mathematical
biology<br>
</li>
<li>Bioinformatics.<br>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I ask
that each
contributor
who has a
preference
among those
Journals reply
to all to this
message and
pick one
venue. Please
pick only one
considering
all aspects of
the venue. You
are welcome to
include your
reasoning, yet
vote towards
only one
venue. You
are welcome to
change your
mind - yet
only your last
vote will
count. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In case
of a tie in
the number of
votes, the
venue that got
the first
counted vote
will be
chosen. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After we
select, I will
put the work
to format the
submission towards that venue and include all necessary submission
matters. In
case of fees,
those who
voted for the
venue will be
responsible
for
covering publication
fees. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At this
point I
assume no one
has any
objections to
any venues and
we are all ok
with
submitting
this version -
so we are just
prioritizing
according to
the majority
of wishes
while keeping
the process
transparent
and giving
some incentive
to early bird
vote. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If any of
my assumptions
are not
correct,
please correct
me now!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is
the best way I
think we can
create
consensus in
such a large
group - and
consensus is
legally
necessary for
publication. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I ask
that we limit
the voting
time to
approximately
one week. So
votes should
be cast by 1am
April 16th
CDT. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will
send another
reminder
during this
week, yet I
assume one
week is
sufficient to
make a simple
choice of
prefered venue
and those not
voting elect
to abstain
from choosing
and prefer the
majority
choice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I look
forward to
your votes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
</div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Vp-reproduce-subgroup
mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Vp-reproduce-subgroup@lists.simtk.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Vp-reproduce-subgroup@lists.simtk.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-reproduce-subgroup" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-reproduce-subgroup</a></span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Vp-reproduce-subgroup
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Vp-reproduce-subgroup@lists.simtk.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Vp-reproduce-subgroup@lists.simtk.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-reproduce-subgroup" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-reproduce-subgroup</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">James A.
Glazier
<div>Indiana University</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
James A. Glazier, PhD
Professor of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Adjunct Professor of Physics
Director, Biocomplexity Institute
Indiana University, Bloomington
(812) 391-2159 (cell)</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
James A. Glazier, PhD
Professor of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Adjunct Professor of Physics
Director, Biocomplexity Institute
Indiana University, Bloomington
(812) 391-2159 (cell)</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>