SummerSim 2017: Population Modeling by Examples III - Reviewers: Thomas Woolly, Jane Heffernan, Robert Smith?
Jacob Barhak
Submission: 42
Title: POPULATION MODELING BY EXAMPLES III
Authors: Population Modeling Working Group -
Scored Evaluation
Originality (1-5)3
Relevance (1-5)3
Reviewer's Confidence (1-5)4
Nominate for Best Paper Award : No
Overall Recommendation: Accept as Work In Progress
Comments
This paper is hard to review and I'm not really sure it should be a paper at all. The paper is an introduction to the work of multiple people, at different institutions, around the world. I've no doubt this is very important as it provides a one stop location for someone to pick the right contact for their questions, problems and collaborations. However, wouldn't this better suited to being an updateable webpage? Surely, people's institutions, interests and email addresses will evolve over time, whereas this article tries to cement the work in time. Equally, having such a website would allow people to update their own blurbs, which would ensure accuracy. Stemming from this fact is the problem that I can't review the science as I am not an expert in the diverse range of subjects that appear. Thus, all I am left with is discussing the qualities of the written language. Here the paper falters, with troubling prose throughout. For example "the Inter Agency Modeling and Analysis Group (IMAG) (IMAG, Online), that Is composed of government officers, created working group that can be composed of researches worldwide." However, all of the textual errors can be fixed after a good proof read. Critically, such errors should be the responsibility of the journal's copy editor and not the scientific reviewer. In summary: a useful idea, which is presented in the wrong medium. Yours, Thomas Woolly
Second review:
1) It is interesting to read about the multiple areas of population modeling - microscopic and macroscopic scales, theory and computer simulation, implications of the modeling results to mathematical modelling and computer simulation and the areas of biology that are under study.
2) I suggest that each section start with one clear sentence that states how their contributors work is related to population modelling. This was not always clear from the outset.
3) There are several grammar issues. In particular, the tense of the first sentence is not always the same. The result is that the document doesn't flow very well.
4) I like the table. I suggest that the table be introduced before the descriptions, providing a Table of Contents type map of the material that follows.
5) Perhaps the order of the contributors could be modified to a more logical sequence. For example, by main area of research focus. If this is not possible to do, then perhaps alphabetical order would be okay.
Jane Heffernan York University
Third review:
Although this is an overview of the field, it should still strive to have academic depth. Publicising the work of contributors is nice, but the entries should also be informative. This is not always true. In particular, I suggest either deleting or significantly expanding the entry from Carl Asche, which adds almost nothing. Overall, it should be streamlined and sentences written out in full.
Robert Smith? The University of Ottawa
Jacob Barhak
Jacob Barhak
| Reviewer: | Robert Smith? | |
| Secondary Reviewer: | Thomas Woolly |
| Submission: | 42 |
| Title: | POPULATION MODELING BY EXAMPLES III |
| Authors: | Population Modeling Working Group - |
Scored Evaluation
| Originality (1-5) | 3 |
| Relevance (1-5) | 3 |
| Reviewer's Confidence (1-5) | 4 |
| Nominate for Best Paper Award | No |
| Overall Recommendation | Accept as Work In Progress |
Comments
This paper is hard to review and I'm not really sure it should be a paper at all. The paper is an introduction to the work of multiple people, at different institutions, around the world. I've no doubt this is very important as it provides a one stop location for someone to pick the right contact for their questions, problems and collaborations. However, wouldn't this better suited to being an updateable webpage? Surely, people's institutions, interests and email addresses will evolve over time, whereas this article tries to cement the work in time. Equally, having such a website would allow people to update their own blurbs, which would ensure accuracy. Stemming from this fact is the problem that I can't review the science as I am not an expert in the diverse range of subjects that appear. Thus, all I am left with is discussing the qualities of the written language. Here the paper falters, with troubling prose throughout. For example "the Inter Agency Modeling and Analysis Group (IMAG) (IMAG, Online), that Is composed of government officers, created working group that can be composed of researches worldwide." However, all of the textual errors can be fixed after a good proof read. Critically, such errors should be the responsibility of the journal's copy editor and not the scientific reviewer. In summary: a useful idea, which is presented in the wrong medium. Yours, Thomas Woolly |
Response: The manuscript has been updated and is much better for it. Just to clarify though, my name has an e in Woolley. In terms of the rebuttal, I agree that getting everyone together in a digital space is difficult as academics are slow to move. However, the authors do seem to agree with this general sentiment. Thus, could I ask them to add a sentence or two to the discussion section, which specifies the intention of the working group to move (slowly) towards a digital platform rather than requiring such paper that collates the work. Yours, Thomas |
Second review: 1) It is interesting to read about the multiple areas of population modeling - microscopic and macroscopic scales, theory and computer simulation, implications of the modeling results to mathematical modelling and computer simulation and the areas of biology that are under study. 2) I suggest that each section start with one clear sentence that states how their contributors work is related to population modelling. This was not always clear from the outset. 3) There are several grammar issues. In particular, the tense of the first sentence is not always the same. The result is that the document doesn't flow very well. 4) I like the table. I suggest that the table be introduced before the descriptions, providing a Table of Contents type map of the material that follows. 5) Perhaps the order of the contributors could be modified to a more logical sequence. For example, by main area of research focus. If this is not possible to do, then perhaps alphabetical order would be okay. Jane Heffernan York University |
Third review: Although this is an overview of the field, it should still strive to have academic depth. Publicising the work of contributors is nice, but the entries should also be informative. This is not always true. In particular, I suggest either deleting or significantly expanding the entry from Carl Asche, which adds almost nothing. Overall, it should be streamlined and sentences written out in full. Robert Smith? The University of Ottawa |
Response: I am still uncomfortable with the lack of depth in the Carl Asche entry. It's extremely informal, saying things like "Specifically busy" as though this were a tossed-out email, rather than an academic work. I am sympathetic to the page limit, so just delete this one. Also, the reference should be consistent (they're not at present) and different authors should be separated by commas. One edit: "The order of introduction is arbitrary trying to group by common categories as shown in Table 1." I'm not sure I understand this. Is it arbitrary or is it trying to group by common categories? I would think the latter, so delete the word "arbitrary". |
Confidential Comments
I did not know how to upload multiple reviews from different authors, so I've put them all in one file. |
Jacob Barhak
| Submission: | 42 |
| Title: | POPULATION MODELING BY EXAMPLES III |
| Authors: | Population Modeling Working Group - |
Scored Evaluation
| Originality (1-5) | 3 |
| Relevance (1-5) | 3 |
| Reviewer's Confidence (1-5) | 4 |
| Nominate for Best Paper Award | No |
| Overall Recommendation | Accept |
Comments
This paper is hard to review and I'm not really sure it should be a paper at all. The paper is an introduction to the work of multiple people, at different institutions, around the world. I've no doubt this is very important as it provides a one stop location for someone to pick the right contact for their questions, problems and collaborations. However, wouldn't this better suited to being an updateable webpage? Surely, people's institutions, interests and email addresses will evolve over time, whereas this article tries to cement the work in time. Equally, having such a website would allow people to update their own blurbs, which would ensure accuracy. Stemming from this fact is the problem that I can't review the science as I am not an expert in the diverse range of subjects that appear. Thus, all I am left with is discussing the qualities of the written language. Here the paper falters, with troubling prose throughout. For example "the Inter Agency Modeling and Analysis Group (IMAG) (IMAG, Online), that Is composed of government officers, created working group that can be composed of researches worldwide." However, all of the textual errors can be fixed after a good proof read. Critically, such errors should be the responsibility of the journal's copy editor and not the scientific reviewer. In summary: a useful idea, which is presented in the wrong medium. Yours, Thomas Woolly Response: The manuscript has been updated and is much better for it. Just to clarify though, my name has an e in Woolley. In terms of the rebuttal, I agree that getting everyone together in a digital space is difficult as academics are slow to move. However, the authors do seem to agree with this general sentiment. Thus, could I ask them to add a sentence or two to the discussion section, which specifies the intention of the working group to move (slowly) towards a digital platform rather than requiring such paper that collates the work. Yours, Thomas Second review: 1) It is interesting to read about the multiple areas of population modeling - microscopic and macroscopic scales, theory and computer simulation, implications of the modeling results to mathematical modelling and computer simulation and the areas of biology that are under study. 2) I suggest that each section start with one clear sentence that states how their contributors work is related to population modelling. This was not always clear from the outset. 3) There are several grammar issues. In particular, the tense of the first sentence is not always the same. The result is that the document doesn't flow very well. 4) I like the table. I suggest that the table be introduced before the descriptions, providing a Table of Contents type map of the material that follows. 5) Perhaps the order of the contributors could be modified to a more logical sequence. For example, by main area of research focus. If this is not possible to do, then perhaps alphabetical order would be okay. Jane Heffernan York University |
Response: I haven't had time to go over the it in depth, but I see that the authors have improved the manuscript given my comments. There are still some grammatical issues remaining. |
Third review: Although this is an overview of the field, it should still strive to have academic depth. Publicising the work of contributors is nice, but the entries should also be informative. This is not always true. In particular, I suggest either deleting or significantly expanding the entry from Carl Asche, which adds almost nothing. Overall, it should be streamlined and sentences written out in full. Robert Smith? The University of Ottawa Response: I am still uncomfortable with the lack of depth in the Carl Asche entry. It's extremely informal, saying things like "Specifically busy" as though this were a tossed-out email, rather than an academic work. I am sympathetic to the page limit, so just delete this one. Also, the reference should be consistent (they're not at present) and different authors should be separated by commas. One edit: "The order of introduction is arbitrary trying to group by common categories as shown in Table 1." I'm not sure I understand this. Is it arbitrary or is it trying to group by common categories? I would think the latter, so delete the word "arbitrary". |
Second response: I am satisfied with the edits. |
Confidential Comments
I did not know how to upload multiple reviews from different authors, so I've put them all in one file. |