[Vp-reproduce-subgroup] [Vp-integration-subgroup] White paper revision
James Osborne
jmosborne at unimelb.edu.au
Tue Aug 17 00:21:24 PDT 2021
Just to clarify the versions were talking about...
Here is the original submitted version that was rejected by the editor
without review.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit
Here's the version we've been working on
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VvyP3YZQdQYjj8DFKOpQ4pn_0pdDGgiT/edit?amp%3Bpli=1
Even in this state, I think it stands a better chance than the previously
submitted one as if you remove all the comments and highlighting it's a
cleaner story. This was a big issue with the original version and I don't
think it's appropriate to resubmit anywhere without looking at this.
The issue is that it will take a concerted effort to polish this updated
version. Even sorting the references is non trivial.
I think the only way of this happening is for a "First Author" to step
forward and take the lead. They push work on the changes and chase people
as needed but in return they get first/senior/corresponding authorship as
appropriate.
James
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:33 PM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks James,
>
> This will for sure not be the final version of the paper. We will have
> revisions and already had discussions.
>
> The attempt here is to get the ball rolling and to we need to start
> somewhere, so the proper entry point is the last agreement.
>
> If the editor will be positive, I believe we can reach a nice revised
> version that everyone will be gappy with with augmented list of authors.
>
> For now I just wanted to verify that Marcella is willing to do the initial
> communications with the editor.
>
> Hopefully its ok with her.
>
> Jacob
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 11:04 James A Glazier <jaglazier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jacob:
>>
>> I see a lot of progress but the text is still fragmentary. I think you
>> will have a hard time having it reviewed before you clean it up some more.
>>
>> Frontiers is a reasonable place for it, and it does give you the
>> opportunity to do multiple rounds of review.
>>
>> JAG
>> On 8/16/2021 11:59 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marcella,
>>
>> So far there were no objections and support in your suggested venue was
>> provided by 9 out of the 17 original authors + support by many that joined
>> later.
>>
>> I have seen no objection to the venue by anyone. - meaning that we can
>> probably move on to the new venue and start the process.
>>
>> I suggest you move on and contact the editor and follow the proper
>> process for the venue and ask for feedback.
>>
>> Please indicate that we are seeking review to guide further revisions
>> that we have already begun, yet not completed, so there may be changes in
>> title, authors, and text, yet the core paper has been approved by 17
>> authors and major arguments will most probably stay.
>>
>> The version we can currently legally submit is this one that we approved:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> I locked that version for changes until the review process is complete.
>>
>> For the many who wanted revisions - we will have them still - yet since
>> we have not reached agreement on a revised version, it will have to wait
>> until after review. is provided and we can incorporate reviewers comments
>> in the revisions.
>>
>> Marcella, please let us know if you will handle submission and
>> communications with the publication venue. - Frontiers in Systems Biology
>>
>> Regarding submission, I suggest starting with doing things that do not
>> take effort - like communicating with the editor about this paper and
>> declaring intention to see the response we get.
>>
>> While we wait for responses, we can continue discussion and give a last
>> chance for objections to Frontiers in Systems Biology to arrive from the
>> original 17 contributors. If any objection to the venue appears before we
>> get a response, we will have to stop the process.
>>
>> Hopefully the large support in the new venue will persist.
>>
>> I suggest we start a new email thread regarding submission and that we
>> all get updated on the process to keep things transparent.
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 1:08 AM Gilberto Gonzalez-Parra <
>> gilberto.gonzalezparra at nmt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I think the new version is better, even though it is not ready. The
>>> main points are there, which include the importance of reproducibility and
>>> integration in modeling biology systems.
>>>
>>> Probably, one or two co-authors need to take the lead to polish the
>>> article and references. I suggest that these authors take some of the
>>> top positions in the list of authors (in some places author position is
>>> taken into account).
>>>
>>> Venue seems fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> ***************************************************************************
>>> Gilberto C. Gonzalez-Parra, Ph.D in Applied Mathematics.
>>> Faculty of the Mathematics Department
>>> New Mexico Tech, NM, USA.
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:24 PM Rahuman Sheriff <sheriff at ebi.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also agree with the venue and the suggestion to tidy up the
>>>> manuscript with a strict deadline.
>>>> Sheriff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Aug 2021, at 10:43, James Osborne <jmosborne at unimelb.edu.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with Frontiers.
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents is that the revised version would be more likely to get
>>>> published. I think we should find time to tidy up what we need.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 5:11 PM Tomas Helikar <thelikar2 at unl.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also fine with this journal. But we need to finalize the revised
>>>>> version -- lots of work was done on it already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we can recirculate the last version of the google doc version
>>>>> of it and set a deadline for finishing it? I don't believe it would take
>>>>> more than a couple of weeks to finalize.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> T.
>>>>> Tomas Helikar, Ph.D.
>>>>> Susan J Rosowski Associate Professor
>>>>> Department of Biochemistry | University of Nebraska-Lincoln
>>>>> m: 402-547-8904 <callto:402-547-8904> | o: 402-472-3530
>>>>> <callto:402-472-3530>
>>>>> www.helikarlab.org <http://helikarlab.org/> |
>>>>> www.thecellcollective.org <https://cellcollective.org/>
>>>>> twitter: @helikarlab <http://twitter.com/helikarlab>, @biocollective
>>>>> <http://twitter.com/biocollective>
>>>>> ***The University of Nebraska E-Mail Confidentiality Disclaimer***
>>>>> The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential,
>>>>> intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above.
>>>>> Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited.
>>>>> If you have received this email by mistake,
>>>>> please delete and immediately contact the sender.
>>>>> On 8/9/21 5:06 PM, John Gennari wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-NU Email
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Jon Karr. The venue is fine, but we need at least a quick
>>>>> review for readability before submission.
>>>>>
>>>>> -John G.
>>>>> On 8/9/2021 7:49 AM, Jonathan Karr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Frontiers is fine. I think the key thing is to edit the paper
>>>>> (for focus and readability by a broader audience) before it is submitted to
>>>>> any journal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 10:31 AM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Marcella,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no objection raised or an alternative resolution with
>>>>>> more support appears, then I see no reason not to proceed. So I think we
>>>>>> just need to give enough time for original contributors to raise an
>>>>>> objection or propose an alternatives that will gain more support. In the
>>>>>> past we used a week for such processes, I guess that if we wait until next
>>>>>> weekend and no objection is raised to the venue or an alternative with more
>>>>>> support appears we can proceed. We currently have 5 original contributors
>>>>>> supporting your suggested venue and one contributor than joined later in
>>>>>> the revisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that in submission you should use the original version we
>>>>>> reached consensus for submission, yet note that that we plan to revise the
>>>>>> work and add more contributors. You can point to revisions we started.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets wait until next week and hope no one objects so we can proceed
>>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 08:52 Torres, Marcella <mtorres at richmond.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once enough contributors agree, the process for submission is that
>>>>>>> I’ll confirm interest (I just got an email requesting for this this
>>>>>>> morning), let them know that we intend to submit 1 manuscript and what the
>>>>>>> proposed title of the manuscript is. Once that initial information is
>>>>>>> submitted, then I will be “emailed information about next steps”. Of
>>>>>>> course, at any point we can also contact the editorial office, but would it
>>>>>>> be helpful to get a sense of the process first and then ask for
>>>>>>> clarification as needed? At what point will we have enough responses from
>>>>>>> contributors to begin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcella
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From: *Vp-reproduce-subgroup <
>>>>>>> vp-reproduce-subgroup-bounces at lists.simtk.org> on behalf of John
>>>>>>> Rice <john.rice at noboxes.org>
>>>>>>> *Date: *Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 7:23 PM
>>>>>>> *To: *Yaling Liu <yal310 at lehigh.edu>
>>>>>>> *Cc: *vp-reproduce-subgroup at lists.simtk.org <
>>>>>>> vp-reproduce-subgroup at lists.simtk.org>,
>>>>>>> vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org <
>>>>>>> vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org>, Jonathan Karr <
>>>>>>> jonrkarr at gmail.com>, John Gennari <gennari at uw.edu>, Faeder, James R
>>>>>>> <faeder at pitt.edu>, Winston Garira <Winston.Garira at univen.ac.za>
>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Vp-reproduce-subgroup] [Vp-integration-subgroup]
>>>>>>> White paper revision
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *External Email:* Use caution in opening links, attachments, and
>>>>>>> buying gift cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Me too
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Typed with two thumbs on my iPhone. (757) 318-0671
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of facts . . . they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To weave it into fabric.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> –Edna St. Vincent Millay,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2021, at 19:09, Yaling Liu <yal310 at lehigh.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am fine with the suggested new venue and willing to revise
>>>>>>> further. We don't need to wait for everyone to reply here - this email
>>>>>>> chain is way too long and guess a lot of people were busy and ignored them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yaling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:57 PM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Hana,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The revised version is far from ready to being submitted anywhere.
>>>>>>> There is just too much to do there to put it in shape for submission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do want to advance in making revisions, yet the attempt here is
>>>>>>> to accelerate the process by asking a 3rd publishing party to provide
>>>>>>> proper review for what is actually needed for publication, so you may want
>>>>>>> to save your efforts until after we get feedback - they will be more
>>>>>>> effective then when we have feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, we do need enough support and no objections to proceed to
>>>>>>> engage with the new venue suggested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have currently 3 of the 17 of the original contributors and 1 who
>>>>>>> joined later that approves of a new venue. Hopefully others will follow so
>>>>>>> we can proceed quickly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 23:46 Dobrovolny, Hana <h.dobrovolny at tcu.edu>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm fine with the suggested venue. I'll double check the sections I
>>>>>>> was heading sometime this week, but I think all suggestions were
>>>>>>> incorporated last time I checked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hana
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *******************************************************
>>>>>>> Dr. Hana Dobrovolny
>>>>>>> Associate Professor of Biophysics
>>>>>>> Texas Christian University
>>>>>>> TCU Box 298840
>>>>>>> Fort Worth, TX 76129
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> phone: (817) 257-6379 fax: (817) 257-7742
>>>>>>> email: h.dobrovolny at tcu.edu
>>>>>>> *******************************************************
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Vp-reproduce-subgroup <
>>>>>>> vp-reproduce-subgroup-bounces at lists.simtk.org> on behalf of Jacob
>>>>>>> Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* August 7, 2021 11:18 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* Torres, Marcella
>>>>>>> *Cc:* vp-reproduce-subgroup at lists.simtk.org;
>>>>>>> vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org; Jonathan Karr; John
>>>>>>> Gennari; Winston Garira; Faeder, James R
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vp-reproduce-subgroup] [Vp-integration-subgroup]
>>>>>>> White paper revision
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *[EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]* DO NOT CLICK LINKS or open attachments
>>>>>>> unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And to all white paper contributors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are getting this message to raise it to the top of your
>>>>>>> mailboxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully enough of you will look at this during the weekend to
>>>>>>> comment on the best way to move forward while considering the new offer
>>>>>>> from Marcella.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The faster we move, the better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 01:03 Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Marcella,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your suggestion may be the solution here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what I see, this venue is a good fit. Yet we need to learn the
>>>>>>> opinion of the other contributors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we collect enough support and no contributor objects, we can
>>>>>>> approach the editor and ask if the paper will receive proper review to
>>>>>>> guide revisions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look forward for more responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021, 11:57 Torres, Marcella <mtorres at richmond.edu>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all and Jacob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m interested in getting it circulated, and want to propose
>>>>>>> Frontiers in Systems Biology as a possible venue – I just joined the
>>>>>>> editorial board and received notice of a focused issue that includes
>>>>>>> challenges in multiscale modeling:
>>>>>>> https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/24484/insights-in-systems-biology-multiscale-mechanistic-modeling-2021?utm_source=F-RTM&utm_medium=CFP_E1&utm_campaign=PRD_CFP_T1_RT-TITLE#
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/24484/insights-in-systems-biology-multiscale-mechanistic-modeling-2021?utm_source=F-RTM&utm_medium=CFP_E1&utm_campaign=PRD_CFP_T1_RT-TITLE*__;Iw!!K6Z8K8YTIA!VdlFMCuGyTWxTFwAHTufvXzSxbtUQ9ckyDlofvqR1sm1Q-6-HD2vdZtc_2WFepwnGQ8$>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The journal is new, and I don’t remember it being proposed
>>>>>>> previously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am also willing to prioritize revision and submission and
>>>>>>> apologize for not participating more over the summer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcella
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From: *Vp-reproduce-subgroup <
>>>>>>> vp-reproduce-subgroup-bounces at lists.simtk.org> on behalf of Jacob
>>>>>>> Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> *Date: *Monday, August 2, 2021 at 11:45 AM
>>>>>>> *To: *Alexander Kulesza <alexander.kulesza at novadiscovery.com>
>>>>>>> *Cc: *vp-reproduce-subgroup at lists.simtk.org <
>>>>>>> vp-reproduce-subgroup at lists.simtk.org>,
>>>>>>> vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org<
>>>>>>> vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org>, Jonathan Karr <
>>>>>>> jonrkarr at gmail.com>, John Gennari <gennari at uw.edu>, Faeder, James R
>>>>>>> <faeder at pitt.edu>, Winston Garira <Winston.Garira at univen.ac.za>
>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Vp-reproduce-subgroup] [Vp-integration-subgroup]
>>>>>>> White paper revision
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *External Email:* Use caution in opening links, attachments, and
>>>>>>> buying gift cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your response first - it is the first public response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I was hoping for a discussion rather than a poll. We
>>>>>>> already made a vote and the direction it took us all ended up badly so far
>>>>>>> - there is no activity for a few months now. Perhaps a discussion is in
>>>>>>> order before making more decisions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Alex, time is something you manage to achieve certain goals with
>>>>>>> certain priorities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real question is if circulating this paper is on a high priority
>>>>>>> list for any of the contributors?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some contributors publicly declared they have little time, yet we
>>>>>>> were still able to push though in the past. What has changed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps a discussion will reveal those things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 2:00 AM Alexander Kulesza <
>>>>>>> alexander.kulesza at novadiscovery.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all, Dear Jacob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope that I speak for many others from this group wishing that the
>>>>>>> ideas presented in that paper do get circulated; optimally in form of a
>>>>>>> reviewed paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that the time of the year impedes many of us (including
>>>>>>> myself) to spend the time needed to edit the sections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have created the following poll
>>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/ydpgvgi594ubi82d?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doodle.com/poll/ydpgvgi594ubi82d?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link__;!!K6Z8K8YTIA!VdlFMCuGyTWxTFwAHTufvXzSxbtUQ9ckyDlofvqR1sm1Q-6-HD2vdZtc_2WFaV6WX1c$>
>>>>>>> which intends to get agreement or disgreement of the group for the
>>>>>>> different optuions that exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 16:54, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greetings contributors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two of the contributors approach me about this message privately.
>>>>>>> However, there were many more who participated and no one responded
>>>>>>> publicly in 2 weeks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you not want this paper be circulated?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am asking those questions publicly since this deserves a public
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully this reminder will stir up the group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 4:46 PM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gilberto,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you can see, there was no response to your email - in fact the
>>>>>>> paper writing stopped - I waited sufficient time to make sure this is the
>>>>>>> case to prove a point. If there is no one to tend to the editing, then
>>>>>>> there will not be any progress and the paper will lose focus -
>>>>>>> partially because people will pull it in many directions and resolution
>>>>>>> will take time no one is willing to provide to move it forward. And this is
>>>>>>> what happened here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remind you that I wrote what needs to be done to make progress.
>>>>>>> See the 4 points in this archived email:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/2021-May/000098.html
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/2021-May/000098.html__;!!K6Z8K8YTIA!VdlFMCuGyTWxTFwAHTufvXzSxbtUQ9ckyDlofvqR1sm1Q-6-HD2vdZtc_2WFEHRSJVg$>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By now it's fairly safe to declare that the group failed to fulfil
>>>>>>> those points in reasonable time, and the revised version is in a worse
>>>>>>> condition towards publication than the version we all agreed to submit
>>>>>>> before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This situation raises the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there more benefit from submitting the findings we had before as
>>>>>>> they were to a 3rd party for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/attachments/20210817/0724699e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vp-reproduce-subgroup
mailing list