<div dir="auto"><div>Hi Gilberto,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div>Please keep all these conversations public. The idea is to keep as much communications as transparent as possible and we archive those - so I ccd the mailing lists.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And yes, you will be getting an organized response letter for the reviewers soon. I was traveling in the last few days and could not sit in front of a computer.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And yes the deadline is near, yet I think that we will first get approval from reviewers before we run an approval run among authors so assembling the response will possible as long as there will be no objections to the communications. So please keep communications public.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I will do my best to integrate to your comments. Thank you.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> Jacob</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, 11:02 Gilberto Gonzalez-Parra <<a href="mailto:gilberto.gonzalezparra@nmt.edu">gilberto.gonzalezparra@nmt.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Jacob,</div><div><br></div><div>Happy new year.</div><div><br></div><div>I will just email you since there is a lot of information on the emails and I think it is probably better that you prepare the response letter for the reviewers (with the suggestion of the authors) and at the end all the authors read it and approve it. </div><div><br></div><div>In general I think the response letter (especially for reviewer 2) should have specific or focused answers to address his concerns about <b>clarity on the intention of the discussion</b>.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding point 8. (You answered). I have this additional phrase that you can mix it with your answer and maybe take some part to add it to the manuscript.</div><div><br></div><div>"We agree with the reviewer that <span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:10pt"> in general c</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;background:yellow">omplex models would suffer more from a lack of
reproducibility</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">. The idea that we wanted to express is that computational biomedical
models are less likely to be deterministic since the biological processes are more
affected by random factors and therefore usually their computer simulations are
not reproducible in a strict sense. For instance, models based on stochastic processes
are not strictly reproducible. However, the mean of the stochastic process
should be relatively reproducible. We changed the text to improve the clarity of this
idea."</span> </div><div><br></div><div>Regarding "<span style="line-height:107%"><b style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">13. TBD - Reviewer 2 asks to handle the Model Application and
Implementation Barriers section</b><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">. We should decide what to do there, the section
may need expansion since the ideas there are solid, yet the section is short so
perhaps enhancing it makes better sense. I am open to </span></font><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">suggestions</span></font><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:10.6667px">"</span></font></span></div><div><span style="line-height:107%"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:10.6667px"><br></span></font></span></div><div><span style="line-height:107%"><font face="arial, sans-serif">The reviewer suggested removing this section (</font></span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Model Application and Implementation Barriers</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">). However, I think this section is very related to the last word of the title of the article (utility). In addition, if models are not reproducible the likelihood to be widely used is low. I can add some phrases for that particular section (or send it to you) .</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Best,</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">PS: I received an email that says the deadline is the 7th, so as you mentioned answers and new text should be focused on questions addressed by the reviewers and try to avoid long discussions/text.</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">***************************************************************************</div><div dir="ltr">Gilberto C. Gonzalez-Parra, <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,"Lucida Grande",sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:13px">Ph.D in Applied Mathematics.</span></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif, serif, EmojiFont"><span style="font-size:13px">Faculty of the </span></font>Mathematics Department<div><div>New Mexico Tech, NM, USA.</div></div><div>****************************************************************************</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>