[Vp-reproduce-subgroup] [EXT] Re: [Vp-integration-subgroup] White paper submission - vote for venue
Jacob Barhak
jacob.barhak at gmail.com
Fri May 7 09:55:45 PDT 2021
Greetings white paper contributors,
You will find me in the contributor list so I do get a vote.
Unless people change their vote, it will be a minority vote, yet I have to
do it all the same as a backup plan.
I doubt the group can reach consensus within reasonable time on the
modified manuscript - therefore I vote to send the manuscript to another
journal as per consensus previously achieved.
I looked at several of the options provided and here is my analysis:
- Bioinformatics cas a $190 charge per excess page - this means it will
cost a lot to submit there so I will not vote for it
- Royal Society Interface as 8000 word limit for review papers - which I
think we qualify, and I did not see charges, so it is a good fit - if we
remove table and look only at the article we are about 8000 words - so this
may fit. However, I did not see a method to query the editor before
submission - one has to go through their submission system if I understand
correctly. It is much easier when one can ask the editor for a fit before
submission.
- BMJ encourages to contact the editor sna their reference style is
close to how our references are formatted. So it may be a good choice,
However the publication fee seems to be high 3,500 Euro.
- F1000research is open - the processing charge would be $1350 for our
article - yet their style is relatively easy to satisfy with references -
so it may be worth the costs
- Nature - I was thinking of technical reports - this has a fee of
$1,500 if I recall correctly from a previous interaction I had with them. I
know they have the option of inquiry before processing the paper, so it may
be a good choice to check. There is also the option of another Nature
Journal that I did not check. I think someone names Nature in our first
meeting when we spoke about the venue, so it was important for me to
revisit this.
I could have checked more, yet from those tests I figured the most
practical choice would be Royal Society Interface. Because it is already
supported somewhat and formatting towards it may not take too much time. It
may not be the ideal choice, yet I think it is more practical than the ones
I checked.
So my vote is:
6. Journal of The Royal Society Interface
My reasoning is that the journal is free and doesn't seem to require too
much formatting before submission. I hope we can find a way to check with
the editors before submission. Yet I have no experience with this journal
so if anyone corrects me on the journals I checked I may change my vote.
The runner up was Nature since it is each to check and since I think it was
originally named - name recognition may be worth the fee. F1000research was
the third runner up - is new and innovative and not very restrictive of
format - so if we are bound to pay - might as well pay for the future.
Again, my vote is intended as a fall back position to allow moving forward
in case of failure to agree on revised paper. Hopefully it will not be
necessary.
Jacob
On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 6:48 PM James Osborne <jmosborne at unimelb.edu.au>
wrote:
> Agree with revision however a lot of the reviewers issues are on
> consistency and formatting so there need's to be some solid rules in place
> for how to revise.
>
> I suggest using leading venue as the template and having a small subgroup
> responsible for formatting and editing to be consistent (shouldn't fall on
> one person to do this as it will take time).
>
> While I agree that there is substantial material here it suffers from
> being overly long and feels like a document written by a lot of people.
> This makes it hard to read and this good stuff gets lost! If we want people
> to read it it should be easy to read.
>
> I don't have access to OA funds at present but for what it's worth I
> support the current leading venues (Bioinformatics and RS interface).
>
> James
>
> James
>
> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 8:51 AM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> * External email: Please exercise caution *
>> ------------------------------
>> Thanks to all those who voted.
>>
>> Voting will continue so this is not final, yet since many seem to vote
>> for revision, all those who wanted to revise should start preparing
>> revisions. It is one thing to make a decision, it is quite another to
>> invest the effort and actually contribute revisions - you can ask
>> permission to edit the document with your google account - .I will grant
>> those - yet I will not open it to anonymous contributions. If the revision
>> option is eventually elected we will have 2 weeks of revisions and then an
>> approval round of 1 week to reach consensus - meaning everyone must approve
>> again . All contributors that wanted to get in will be able to contribute.
>> I only ask that new contributors add substantial content - like address
>> some of our open issues.
>>
>> If we do not reach consensus within 4 weeks which is 1 week till voting
>> end + 2 weeks of revisions + 1 week of approval, the fall back position is
>> the current version that already achieved consensus. And consensus here
>> means unanimous agreement among all contributors - this is required legally
>> for publication.
>>
>> In other words if we do not reach consensus within a month on a revised
>> version, we will resubmit the already approved version since we already
>> reached consensus there. And I suggest not to wait till the last minute -
>> if all revisions come in the last day - consensus may not be reached.
>> People need time to look at the document. So please post your revisions as
>> soon as possible. I am using those time scales since this is the month of
>> May already - almost 1/3 of a year since we started - and much of it was
>> wasted on waiting for people to react - I personally see this as dragging
>> feet. The content we assembled is already substantial - any delay reduced
>> the impact.
>>
>> When revising, please consider the venue. Currently it is either RS
>> Interface or Bioinformatics yet this may change if others vote in a
>> different direction - remember, you can change your vote and your last vote
>> counts.
>>
>> Hopefully this email gives everyone sufficient time to react if indeed
>> revision will be elected.
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 4:56 PM Yaling Liu <yal310 at lehigh.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> 13 - open for revision; Bioinformatics sounds good.
>>>
>>> Yaling
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 3:45 PM William Waites <wwaites at ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agree on 13 revision, though I am severely time-constrained for the
>>>> next few weeks.
>>>>
>>>> No strong preference on venue but it’s good to have an idea of the
>>>> audience we’re writing for. I like RS Interface or Bioinformatics. If this
>>>> gets done before my MRC funding runs out, they will pay OA fees.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -w
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 1 May 2021, at 20:38, Eric Forgoston <eric.forgoston at montclair.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > 13 - open for revision; no preference on venue.
>>>> > ---------------------
>>>> > Dr. Eric Forgoston
>>>> > Professor of Applied Mathematics
>>>> > Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
>>>> > Montclair State University
>>>> > Montclair, NJ 07043 USA
>>>> > +1 973 655-7242
>>>> > https://eric-forgoston.github.io/
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jonathan Karr <jonrkarr at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > #13 -- revise
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 1:18 PM Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Greetings white paper contributors,
>>>> >
>>>> > It is time to vote again for the target venue. Here are the options
>>>> again.
>>>> > • Cureus - resubmission after addressing editor comments
>>>> > • Nature - if you vote for this venue please specify flavour
>>>> such as Nature Scientific Reports
>>>> > • Science
>>>> > • Briefings in Bioinformatics
>>>> > • Trends in Biotechnology - requires distilling the paper
>>>> > • Journal of The Royal Society Interface
>>>> > • Annual Review of Public Health
>>>> > • BMJ
>>>> > • Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering
>>>> > • F1000research - if you vote for this this venue please
>>>> specify Gateway / Collection
>>>> > • bulletin of mathematical biology
>>>> > • Bioinformatics.
>>>> > • Do not submit now - instead open for revisions for 2 weeks
>>>> and then submit. If you choose this option also vote for the target venue
>>>> after revisions so that we will not have to delay further.
>>>> >
>>>> > I will ask that contributors pick one journal from that list - I ask
>>>> that you REPLY ALL so votes will be transparent and time of vote will be
>>>> registered since first to vote will break ties.
>>>> >
>>>> > The voting period will be until Tuesday 11-May 1am CDT
>>>> >
>>>> > Again, if a journal costs for open publication, whoever voted, will
>>>> split publication costs. If anyone on this list is funded for this, please
>>>> vote.
>>>> >
>>>> > I urge contributors to vote - just so that we will have a preference
>>>> order to follow in case of rejection.
>>>> >
>>>> > Looking forward to your votes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jacob
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Vp-integration-subgroup mailing list
>>>> > Vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org
>>>> > https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-integration-subgroup
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Vp-integration-subgroup mailing list
>>>> > Vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org
>>>> > https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-integration-subgroup
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Vp-integration-subgroup mailing list
>>>> Vp-integration-subgroup at lists.simtk.org
>>>> https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-integration-subgroup
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -- ------------------
>>> Yaling Liu, Professor
>>> Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics
>>> Department of Bioengineering
>>> Lehigh University
>>> www.lehigh.edu/~yal310
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Vp-reproduce-subgroup mailing list
>>> Vp-reproduce-subgroup at lists.simtk.org
>>> https://lists.simtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vp-reproduce-subgroup
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.simtk.org/pipermail/vp-reproduce-subgroup/attachments/20210507/630669d2/attachment.html>
More information about the Vp-reproduce-subgroup
mailing list