[Vp-reproduce-subgroup] Recap from joint meeting regarding the white paper

[Jacob Barhak]

Thanks John, Thanks Jonathan,

John, first thanks for supporting the paper and for fixing the
reference issue - I added your minor changes to the current version.

However, both you and Jonathan put me in a difficult position. You see, I
invited you both as experts to contribute your knowledge to increase the
potency of the claims in the paper. I did this in a timely manner
according to timelines that were given by the working group leads. You both
contributed and I did my best to integrate your texts with many others who
contributed. My preferences in the integration process were to keep things
as open as possible while preserving the texts contributed as much as
possible. I believe each contributor can find their words with very minor
changes in the text - I really tried not to change anything unless
absolutely necessary to keep flow.

To proceed forward and send this to publication, I need approval of all
contributors to legally sign the copyright transfer. If I do not get your
approval it is technically plagiarism.  John, in your position, you must be
aware of this and I am happy you decided to approve submission without your
name in the authors list - since your declaration was made publicly, I see
this as an equivalent to copyright transfer so that group can proceed to
submission without the group removing texts you contributed and going
through another approval round. Please correct me if I am wrong and you
have any copyright claims on any text you contributed.

I respect John's wishes to be removed from the list of authors - I removed
you despite my wishes to keep you in. You see, the paper is about 23 pages
and we had 18 contributors - this means that the contribution of each
author is limited and none of the authors really shape the entire paper as
you want to - some authors like Jonathan contributed more text and some
less. Yet each had some ideas they contributed. The approval process we are
going through is to make sure that each author knows each of the other
contributions and has no objections. In simple words, each author is ok
with defending the ideas in the paper and believes there are benefits in
publishing it and being associated with the paper. If any contributor
thinks they cannot be associated with the paper under these terms, then
they should not approve. And if you think something is wrong or incorrect -
for sure everyone should know about it before we submit.

Just to give an example, I had a strong opinion on the use of the term
"standard" and raised this topic many times in this working group - today I
would not be willing to be an author on a paper that lists some specs as a
standard without going through the proper standardization process. However,
I am more than willing to compromise if another term is used to describe
good work in a standardization process that was not completed.  This is my
level of compromise on this one topic and each one of the contributors has
to decide on their level of compromise with many topics listed in the
paper.

To submit a paper to a 3rd party publisher and have your name listed as an
author I need to make sure you are ok with the compromises made when
assembling the paper.

John is unwilling to make the compromise to be listed as an author - I
respect this, yet  personally think he should reconsider - John your
contributions on annotations are important and were invited on purpose and
you can help us defend some ideas in the paper if challenged.

Jonathan, you already approved, in my mind it meant that you made the
compromise that allowed this paper to proceed to the next stage. If this is
incorrect and you are uncomfortable with being associated with the text,
please withdraw your approval and let us know if you are ok if
your substantial text contributions can be used without your name in the
contributors list.

I also want you to consider one more thing. Time is an important factor you
should weigh in your decision. Rapid publication of the work will have a
faster impact. Perfecting work beyond some point in time has a negative
effect since flow of ideas are delayed in the name of perfection. Also what
is perfect for one person may not be perfect to another and the more
contributors there are the larger the chance of disagreement which will
delay things further - sometimes indefinitely. Under those conditions, you
should ask yourself this question: "is the release of this manuscript serve
more good if published early, or are changes to contribute are worth the
damage of delay and need for additional rounds of approvals after more
change?"

Also remember that if we submit to a peer review journal, there will most
probably be a request for changes - I saw only once a paper that was not
returned for changes and I blame the review process. So chances are that
even the version we have will have to go through some changes - so the
question is if you are ok with submitting this version knowing there will
be changes?

The work we accomplished in the working group with this white paper draft
just started. There will be plenty more work in the future if we decide to
persist. John, you are more than welcome to join the mailing lists and
register yourself with the working group leads this will help you keep
track of our activities and participate in them. I believe you can
contribute a lot with your expertise on annotations. In fact, I think you
should speak with the working group leaders to present a webinar on
annotations at the Thursday Webinar series. You are also more than welcome
to change your mind and rejoin the contributor list - I will gladly add
you. I made sure the working group leads are CCd to this message to make it
easier to contact them.

Jonathan, I hope your previous approval stands after reading this message.

I would really appreciate your future participation.

              Jacob









On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:05 AM Jonathan Karr <jonrkarr at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with John's sentiments. I support the overarching ideas in the
> document. Toward that end, I'm happy to signal that as a listed
> contributor. However, I think the manuscript needs polishing for
> submission to a journal. For example, the abstract would need to be
> rephrased for a broader audience.
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:45 AM John Gennari <gennari at uw.edu> wrote:
>
>> Jacob:
>>
>> Thanks for all of your emails. My reply will be in two parts. It seems
>> like the most pressing thing is answer some specific questions that were in
>> the comments addressed to me, including providing text for one of the
>> citations listed (#G2). I will do that first. Next, you are looking for
>> approval from the 18 people listed at the bottom; I will address that
>> second. I've cc'd all of those that you suggested I do in such
>> correspondence.
>>
>> ************
>>
>> First, in two spots (p. 10 and p. 14), you ask me to verify if the use of
>> the word "consistent" when talking about standards (or de facto standards)
>> such as SBML is okay. Absolutely, this is fine. I do note that the current
>> text avoids using the word "standard" at all, and I'm also okay with this.
>>
>> Next, for the citation G2 (Neal, et al, 2019), please insert the
>> following text into p. 13. New text is indicated in italics:
>>
>> ...One tool is SBML-comp, but it i's cumbersome and few tools support it. *Another
>> tool is SemGen [G2], but it focuses on finding mappings between similar
>> models. *To the point here, *both tools are *designed to compose models
>> that weren't intended to...."
>>
>> ************
>>
>> For the approval bit, you write:  "Do you feel comfortable being listed
>> as a contributor to the composed version? There are no more changes
>> expected other than minor grammar corrections."
>>
>> I'm going to tease this question apart a bit.
>>
>> First, I'm happy to be a contributor who agrees with the overarching
>> ideas expressed in this document.
>>
>> However, in its current shape, I am not willing to be listed as
>> co-author, even for "just" an initial journal submission. I make a pretty
>> strong distinction between general support of ideas, and willingness to
>> attach my name to a specific piece of text. As graduate program director, I
>> have to "walk the walk" about the responsibilities of academic authorship.
>>
>> If you want to submit this text to some journal in the near future, I
>> absolutely give you permission to do so without my name. I have not
>> contributed much anyways.  However, I would hope that I would continue to
>> be invited to comment on and contribute to this sort of document.
>> Reproducibility, annotation, and model reuse is definitely my research
>> area, and I would love to continue to help move the field forward.
>>
>> Really, I think that I joined this process very late, and didn't have the
>> opportunity to shape the document early on. Without that kind of
>> opportunity, I don't think that co-authorship is appropriate. If for some
>> reason, you do think that I should be a co-author, then I would want to
>> provide much more input. This would slow down the whole process (which no
>> one wants).  On the other hand, if the whole process slows down for other
>> reasons, then I would be happy to provide more input and feedback about the
>> text.
>>
>> -John Gennari
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/2021 12:29 AM, Jacob Barhak wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John,
>>
>> The fixes you ask seem mostly minor to me and some were anticipated and
>> marked. We have not yet decided on a  target venue and there will be more
>> minor changes after paper review and another round of approvals that will
>> follow.
>>
>> For now I am trying to make things manageable by getting people to agree
>> to submit - I do not know about you, yet I only once saw a paper that got
>> accepted without changes requested by reviewers, and I must add it was not
>> a major breakthrough - so I blame review. My request to approve the paper
>> is necessary from a legal perspective - Otherwise I am not allowed to
>> submit in your names. I frankly do not trust academics to be practical and
>> I believe you sensed it. And  I am trying to complete a task the working
>> group leads, that are also academics, tasked us. This means we need to get
>> to a level where all those who contributed are ok with paper submission -
>> this means they agree with the text and what others wrote and I edited.
>>
>> The agreement should be at the level of good enough for submission - not
>> final product.
>>
>> You ask to delay the paper until after a conference. This seems too much
>> to get approvals - we waited long enough anyway . How about this compromise?
>>
>> 1. I fixed the text issue in pages 14-15 you mentioned - those are minor
>> - check the version history for recent changes.
>>
>> 2. I would love SemGen to be mentioned. Notice that Reference [G2] that
>> you provided before was not referenced in the text you provided- I actually
>> commented on it for your correction - look at the comments - some of those
>> require your approval - you have to provide information on where to mention
>> it. And when we say tool - we also include the SBML language - a language
>> is a communication tool after all - so it does not change anything. Yet if
>> you think SemGen is approprite to be listed in the table near SBML-comp -
>> please tell me how to do it. I know little about those and need the expert
>> to instruct me where to make the change. You are this expert - please help
>> yet please keep the change minor.
>>
>> 3. You want to add another reference. Let us please wait until the review
>> is done for more modifications - otherwise this will never end - every
>> author will want to add more references and if you allow one, this will
>> never finish. However, after review, we will open up the paper for more
>> changes in which you can add the last reference you sent me by email.
>>
>> 4. The open issues section at the end is important since it includes
>> issues we will address in the future and people felt that some of the
>> topics there are important. We will cut the paper according to venue
>> requests after review - I know there are repeated ideas, yet I decided not
>> to remove ideas anyone contributed - this would be a kind of censorship and
>> I only trimmed the paper in some places that were absolutely necessary.
>> After Review we can reopen the issues since there will be another round of
>> approvals.
>>
>> 5. ModelXchange is already mentioned in the paper - Jonathan Karr added
>> it so unless you have objections to it being added there is no need to wait
>> for a conference.
>>
>> 6. If you want to iterate through the text and find typos and
>> grammar issues, that is fine. Hana Dobrovolny did this in the past and many
>> approved already, so I assumed it was good enough , yet if you are more
>> particular, please go ahead. However, if you intend to make major changes,
>> then I will advise against it. I rather suggest that we use the mailing
>> list to raise issues publicly - if there is a dispute, we should discuss it
>> and form a consensus. I am CCing all authors in the mailing list to this
>> conversation to clarify what I am asking for them  Hopefully it will
>> accelerate the process.
>>
>> 7. I added your name and affiliation to the list of contributors, yet did
>> not remove the red color to indicate you have not approved yet.
>>
>> 8. As for definition of publication - in a sense we are public already -
>> and we maintain the links to the changes made by contributors - however,
>> the intention is to submit somewhere for formal review
>>
>> I hope the above compromise is sufficient for you to approve submission.
>>
>>
>>                     Jacob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:54 AM John Gennari <gennari at uw.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Greetings, Jacob.
>>>
>>> I hope that Spring has finally found you in Texas, as it has appeared
>>> here in Seattle. I've just now completed my teaching for the quarter, and
>>> so have had the time to return to this white paper manuscript.
>>>
>>> In your email, you ask just a few questions; I will answer these, but
>>> also provide some thoughts about the paper as a whole.
>>>
>>> My name for publications & manuscripts is "John H Gennari" (there are a
>>> couple other John Gennari in academia, believe it or not). My affiliation
>>> is "Dep't of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of
>>> Washington".
>>>
>>> I have no conflicts of interest, and I have no target publication venue
>>> in mind (see also my thoughts at the end).
>>>
>>> You also ask "Do you feel comfortable being listed as a contributor to
>>> the composed version? There are no more changes expected other than minor
>>> grammar corrections or fixing issues listed with comments." This one is a
>>> more challenging question, of course.
>>>
>>> First, my condolences on taking the lead with such a long list of
>>> potential co-authors. I know from personal experience that getting
>>> agreement or any forward movement with more than about 5 or 6 academicians
>>> is a challenging task. It can be done, but certainly requires patience.
>>>
>>> Next, I definitely agree with the great majority of what the paper says.
>>> It is a huge improvement over what I saw before, and much of my confusion
>>> about the manuscript has been alleviated. There is one relatively small
>>> amendment I would like to suggest, but I don't believe it changes the
>>> meaning or direction of the paper (see below).
>>>
>>> However, I do have some issues with some of the sentence-level writing.
>>> I see that you say "minor grammar corrections" are yet to occur, but I
>>> found many sentences that seemed weak -- not just a matter of simple
>>> grammatical fixes. In at least a few cases, there seemed to be some
>>> important word omissions, so that the meaning was not at all clear.
>>>
>>> My concern is that even if I agree with the content, I don't want my
>>> name attached to a manuscript that includes many problematic sentences. The
>>> tenor of your emails made it seem like the manuscript was almost ready to
>>> be submitted somewhere, and that does not sit comfortably with me. Now
>>> perhaps this is largely a stratagem to get us slow-moving academicians to
>>> read and respond to your emails, but....
>>>
>>> As an example of my concerns, the section titled "Missing annotations in
>>> Models" has problems, and perhaps is simply incomplete. E.g. the last line
>>> of p. 14 is "However, despite the intention, there is a lack of use of
>>> annotations: ", and there is nothing following the colon. The sentence also
>>> stands alone, as its own paragraph. The paragraph at the top of page 15
>>> appears to have some missing words: "This is particular because..." The
>>> next starts starts "This is also particularly because..."  Did you mean
>>> "particularly good"? Or particularly problematic, or....? Or perhaps you
>>> meant "This is also especially because..." ?? But if that's the meaning,
>>> then I'm not sure what the "this" refers to.
>>>
>>> These aren't simple grammatical mistakes -- I literally do not
>>> understand what the intended meaning is.
>>>
>>> The one amendment I would like to suggest begins with the nice table on
>>> p. 8, listing all of the difficulties and potential solutions. In
>>> particular, the cell for "adaptation toward integration" mentions the
>>> SBML-Comp tool. I'm somewhat familiar with this idea SBML extension, and in
>>> fact, Max Neal, Lucian Smith (the author of SBML-Comp), myself and others
>>> (indeed, more than 5 co-authors) have written a paper titled "A Reappraisal
>>> of How to Build Modular, Reusable Models of Biological Systems"
>>> (PloSCompBIo, 2014).
>>>
>>> In the table, it suggests that SBML-Comp is a tool, whereas I think of
>>> it more as an extension to the SBML language. In contrast, Max and I and
>>> others have developed a tool for model adaptation and integration called
>>> SemGen (Bioinformatics, 2019). It's totally appropriate to mention
>>> SBML-Comp, but I really don't think of it as a tool, and if tools are
>>> listed, then I'd like to ask that the SemGen tool be mentioned. If
>>> appropriate, I could also write a sentence or two summarizing the 2014
>>> PLoSCompBio publication.
>>>
>>> Finally, I would like to add that (as you implied) the paper is now
>>> *quite* long. As happens with multiple authors, I think there are
>>> places that seem a bit redundant, and I think much could be reduced from
>>> the manuscript without loss. As an example, I did not find the section at
>>> the end on "Open Discussion Issues" to be useful, nor well-connected to the
>>> rest of the manuscript.
>>>
>>> Of course, matters of length are always partially mediated by the target
>>> venue for publication. If by "publication", you simply mean publication on
>>> the IMAG website, then I suppose there would be no imposed limits. But
>>> brevity is often good.
>>>
>>> The COMBINE HARMONY meeting is in less than two weeks (March 22-26). Jon
>>> Karr, myself, and Sheriff Rahuman at the least, will be presenting and busy
>>> that week. I also note from the program that Henning Hermjacob will be
>>> giving a brief talk on "ModelXchange -- Status update and Data
>>> Invitation".  Might I ask that we delay any idea of trying to finalize this
>>> manuscript until after this meeting? For me, at least, the meeting might
>>> impact how I think about modularity, multi-scale modeling, and our efforts
>>> and supporting reproducibility.
>>>
>>> I hope you don't find this email too long and annoying. As I mentioned,
>>> I do know that it can be challenging to work with many co-authors at once.
>>> I'd also be happy to iterate further on the text, if that would be helpful
>>> at this stage.
>>>
>>> -John Gennari
>>>
>>> ps:
>>>
>>> Here is the full citation information for the two papers I mention
>>> above:
>>>
>>> Neal ML, Thompson CT, Kim KG, James RC, Cook DL, Carlson BE, and Gennari
>>> JH (2019). SemGen: a tool for semantics-based annotation and composition of
>>> biosimulation models. Bioinformatics. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty829
>>>
>>> Neal ML, Cooling MT, Smith LP, Thompson CT, Sauro HM, Carlson BE, Cook
>>> DL, Gennari JH (2014). A reappraisal of how to build modular, reusable
>>> models of biological systems. PLoS Computational Biology. doi:
>>> 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003849
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/4/2021 1:46 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings to all the white paper contributors:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Karr
>>> Rahuman Sheriff
>>> James Osborne
>>> Gilberto Gonzalez Parra
>>> Eric Forgoston
>>> Ruth Bowness
>>> Yaling Liu
>>> Robin Thompson
>>> Winston Garira
>>> Jacob Barhak
>>> John Rice
>>> Marcella Torres
>>> John Gennari
>>> Hana M. Dobrovolny
>>> Tingting Tang
>>> William Waites
>>> James Glazier
>>> James R Faeder
>>>
>>> If you contributed text to the white paper and not on this list, please
>>> let me know as soon as possible - I did my best to assemble all
>>> contributors and want to make sure no one was missed by mistake.
>>>
>>> Following the reopening, the white paper grew in size. It is now about
>>> 29 pages and 18 contributors. You will find it here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> I suggest closing the paper and going again through the formal approval
>>> process so that the paper can be submitted to some publisher.
>>>
>>> I will ask that all contributors approve the paper - so if you
>>> contributed I expect an email from you with the following elements:
>>>
>>> 1. Do you feel comfortable being listed as a contributor to the composed
>>> version? There are no more changes expected other than minor grammar
>>> corrections or fixing issues listed with comments. I will need approval
>>> from all contributors to move forward and since there are many of you,
>>> please send confirmation as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> 2. What is your affiliation so I can add it at the end.
>>>
>>> 3. If you have a conflict of interest, please report it so I can add it
>>> to the paper. If you are unsure, please download the form from this link
>>> http://icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.zip and then fill in the
>>> questions and press the generate button - it will create the COI disclosure
>>> text for you.
>>>
>>> 4. If you have a target venue in mind for the paper, please suggest - we
>>> will pick one with consensus that everyone is comfortable with.
>>>
>>> I will ask those who approved the paper before to look at the changes
>>> since the day of approval - we added around 4 pages of text and authors
>>> should be aware of.
>>>
>>> For all those who wanted to add material and could not manage, I
>>> apologize - yet at this point it seems we are refining the ideas and not
>>> contributing new ones and it was open for a while and we need to move on.
>>>
>>> I look forward to your responses.
>>>
>>>                 Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:29 PM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greetings subgroups,
>>>>
>>>> James Glazier the working group lead, indicated that the white paper
>>>> deadline of tomorrow is flexible, so it is possible to get additional
>>>> contributions to the white paper.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore I will ask anyone who wanted to contribute and did not have
>>>> the chance to contribute to the paper until the end of the weekend.
>>>> Please send me an email to gain access - I will redacted you to the
>>>> correct draft. Here is again the link to the integrated version:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IMEgmdNkx-EsnOjGuegpenSIMmKIkK00Lc8Gred3QxM/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> Many of you contributed already and some even approved this assembled
>>>> manuscript - I asked those who have not approved already to wait a few more
>>>> days before reviewing the paper so that they can approve the final version
>>>> next week.
>>>>
>>>>            Jacob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 3:59 AM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greetings subgroups,
>>>>>
>>>>> As promised the merging of both papers have started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some technicalities:
>>>>>
>>>>> The title of the jint white paper will be:
>>>>> Model Integration in Computational Biology: the Role of
>>>>> Reproducibility, Credibility and Utility
>>>>>
>>>>> The author of the paper will be:
>>>>> Multiscale Modeling and Viral Pandemics Working Group
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked through all the edit list on the paper and found the
>>>>> following contributors:
>>>>> Jonathan Karr
>>>>> Rahuman Sheriff
>>>>> James Osborne
>>>>> Gilberto Gonzalez Parra
>>>>> Eric Forgoston
>>>>> Ruth Bowness
>>>>> Yaling Liu
>>>>> Robin Thompson
>>>>> Winston Garira
>>>>> Anonymous contributor January 25, 2:13 PM
>>>>> Jacob Barhak
>>>>> John Rice
>>>>>
>>>>> The Anonymous contributor on January 25, 2:13 PM added the words: ".
>>>>> There are also challenges in gaining testable insight. Are they truly
>>>>> necessary? ". . However, unless the contributor identifies themselves, I
>>>>> cannot add their name and may remove this sentence since it seems misplaced
>>>>> and not attributed to any person.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I missed any contributor, please let me know so I can add the
>>>>> person to the list of contributors. I just looked at the changes history on
>>>>> the document and pulled names - if anyone added text using an account by
>>>>> someone else, let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I will wait for a couple of more days for any last minute
>>>>> contributions. I will ask for anyone who wanted to contribute and did
>>>>> not have a chance to edit the papers directly over the weekend. I will do
>>>>> my best to integrate changes done over the weekend, yet I cannot guarantee
>>>>> adding any more changes - we had enough time to make those edits and  we
>>>>> need to wrap things up at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will send the link to the combined draft paper once it is in good
>>>>> shape for approval.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try my best to harmonize all contributions and maintain flow.
>>>>> Yet there are a lot of discussions and open end issues left, so I am not
>>>>> sure how practical it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone wants to help editing, let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully you will find the final product in good shape.
>>>>>
>>>>>               Jacob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:26 AM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings to the model reproducibility, credibility and
>>>>>> standardization and integration subgroups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the joint meeting of the groups we discussed the papers and ideas
>>>>>> behind the merge as well as their own contributions to the working group
>>>>>> and paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was decided unanimously to merge the two white papers together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The white paper drafts are in good form currently and include a lot
>>>>>> of information. You can find them in these links:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voUSrSpv3AZlC1T-BLa3W4wzHQ5vEdJCVrBbwMUTDiQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cqwXAjBWEiJZ1tUBnf66QVHdHd2fKq_W0py7t4PNVLo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The group did not reach a conclusion on the title of the joint
>>>>>> paper.  Suggestions for the title are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beyond what was discussed in the meeting I would like to add the
>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the deadline for the white paper is Feb 26th - it is suggested
>>>>>> that all contributors who want to join the author list of the white paper
>>>>>> will make edits until Feb 19th in the respective papers. This will allow
>>>>>> time to merge the papers together and send it to both lists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless someone else volunteers to help merge, I will personally start
>>>>>> the merge on Feb 20th, so contributions to the text after that date may not
>>>>>> be merged. Individuals who wish to be in the author list should contribute
>>>>>> text before that date and preferably write their name near the contributed
>>>>>> text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally look forward to more feedback and contributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              Jacob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/attachments/20210319/a3c13b6a/attachment-0001.html>