<div dir="ltr">Thanks John, Thanks Jonathan,<div><br></div><div>John, first thanks for supporting the paper and for fixing the reference issue - I added your minor changes to the current version. <br><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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?" </div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Jonathan, I hope your previous approval stands after reading this message.</div><div><br></div><div>I would really appreciate your future participation.</div><div><br></div><div> Jacob</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:05 AM Jonathan Karr <<a href="mailto:jonrkarr@gmail.com">jonrkarr@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">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.<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Jonathan</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:45 AM John Gennari <<a href="mailto:gennari@uw.edu" target="_blank">gennari@uw.edu</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>Jacob: <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>************<br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>Next, for the citation G2 (Neal, et al, 2019), please insert the
following text into p. 13. New text is indicated in italics: <br>
</p>
<p>...One tool is SBML-comp, but it i's cumbersome and few tools
support it. <i>Another tool is SemGen [G2], but it focuses on
finding mappings between similar models. </i>To the point here,
<i>both tools are </i>designed to compose models that weren't
intended to...."<br>
</p>
<p>************</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>I'm going to tease this question apart a bit. <br>
</p>
<p>First, I'm happy to be a contributor who agrees with the
overarching ideas expressed in this document. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>-John Gennari</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 3/11/2021 12:29 AM, Jacob Barhak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Thanks John,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The agreement should be at the level of good enough for
submission - not final product. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. I fixed the text issue in pages 14-15 you mentioned -
those are minor - check the version history for recent
changes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope the above compromise is sufficient for you to
approve submission. </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 Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:54
AM John Gennari <<a href="mailto:gennari@uw.edu" target="_blank">gennari@uw.edu</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><br>
</p>
<p>Greetings, Jacob. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>In your email, you ask just a few questions; I will
answer these, but also provide some thoughts about the
paper as a whole. <br>
</p>
<p>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". <br>
</p>
<p>I have no conflicts of interest, and I have no target
publication venue in mind (see also my thoughts at the
end). <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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....</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>These aren't simple grammatical mistakes -- I literally
do not understand what the intended meaning is. <br>
</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>Finally, I would like to add that (as you implied) the
paper is now <b>quite</b> 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.
<br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>-John Gennari<br>
</p>
<p>ps: <br>
</p>
<p>Here is the full citation information for the two papers
I mention above: <br>
</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 4pt 18.7pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow"><span></span></span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow"></span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 3/4/2021 1:46 PM, Jacob Barhak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings to all the white paper
contributors:
<div><br>
</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>
Jacob Barhak <br>
John Rice <br>
Marcella Torres<br>
John Gennari<br>
Hana M. Dobrovolny <br>
Tingting Tang<br>
William Waites<br>
James Glazier<br>
James R Faeder<br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Following the reopening, the white paper grew
in size. It is now about 29 pages and 18
contributors. You will find it here:</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>I suggest closing the paper and going again
through the formal approval process so that the
paper can be submitted to some publisher.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will ask that all contributors approve the
paper - so if you contributed I expect an email
from you with the following elements:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. What is your affiliation so I can add it at
the end. <br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.zip" target="_blank">http://icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.zip</a>
and then fill in the questions and press the
generate button - it will create the COI
disclosure text for you.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I look forward to your responses.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 25, 2021
at 4:29 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 subgroups,<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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:<br>
</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>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 20,
2021 at 3:59 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">Greetings subgroups,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As promised the merging of both papers have
started. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here are some technicalities:</div>
<div><br>
The title of the jint white paper will be:</div>
<div>Model Integration in Computational Biology:
the Role of Reproducibility, Credibility and
Utility<br>
<br>
The author of the paper will be:</div>
<div>Multiscale Modeling and Viral Pandemics
Working Group </div>
<div><br>
I looked through all the edit list on the
paper and found the following contributors:<br>
</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>
Anonymous contributor January 25, 2:13 PM</div>
<div>Jacob Barhak<br>
</div>
<div>John Rice <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will send the link to the combined draft
paper once it is in good shape for approval.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If anyone wants to help editing, let me
know. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hopefully you will find the final product
in good shape. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</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 Fri, Feb
12, 2021 at 10:26 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">Greetings to the model
reproducibility, credibility and
standardization and integration subgroups
<div><br>
</div>
<div> 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. <br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It was decided unanimously to merge
the two white papers together. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The white paper drafts are in good
form currently and include a lot of
information. You can find them in these
links:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voUSrSpv3AZlC1T-BLa3W4wzHQ5vEdJCVrBbwMUTDiQ/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1voUSrSpv3AZlC1T-BLa3W4wzHQ5vEdJCVrBbwMUTDiQ/edit?usp=sharing</a></div>
<div><br>
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cqwXAjBWEiJZ1tUBnf66QVHdHd2fKq_W0py7t4PNVLo/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cqwXAjBWEiJZ1tUBnf66QVHdHd2fKq_W0py7t4PNVLo/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The group did not reach a conclusion
on the title of the joint paper.
Suggestions for the title are welcome. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Beyond what was discussed in the
meeting I would like to add the
following: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I personally look forward to more
feedback and contributions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Jacob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>