SummerSim 2017: Population Modeling by Examples III - Response for Reviewers
Jacob Barhak
Response to Review for SummerSim 2017 paper #13 – Population Modeling by Examples III
The response is embedded within the review text below.
############################
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:
Tomas is absolutely correct. It would be great if all modelers will centralize in one location and create living web pages with links to possible web pages. However, it is not straightforward possibly because of academic culture that is still rewarded by publications. Even collecting this amount of contributions every year takes a lot of effort. So although not ideal, it may be the best that can be done to help a group with overlapping interests come together. And I thank the reviewer for recognizing the importance of bringing this group together. If you check the previous papers this group produces you will see some evolution. The first paper just brought a bunch of modelers together. The second paper actually added a classification, due to a request by a reviewer. After this review, the folk in the mailing list were asked if they are willing to join a web portal and create projects. So in the long run the review may influence researcher to go in that direction. And following this response a suggestion was posted to our mailing list for folk to join the SimTk model repository. However, for the mean time I request that the reviewer accepts the importance of mapping the field and accepts the revised version.
####################
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.
####################
RESPONSE:
The reviewer is interested. This is encouraging.
####################
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.
####################
RESPONSE:
The paper was revised to include a description sentence for each entry. This is a good idea.
####################
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.
####################
RESPONSE:
Yes, the reviewer is correct. This was improved. The text was originally adapted from multiple contributions that the authors sent to the mailing list – there was no binding format with regards to the text and the editor tried to change only what is absolutely needed change to avoid planting wrong intention during modifications – sometimes authors choose certain format on purpose. Several correction passes were made and hopefully the reviewer will be content with the result.
####################
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.
####################
RESPONSE:
This is a good idea and the paper was rewritten to reflect this.
####################
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:
This change was made to make the map show clusters – the order now is such that the map is visually pleasing with the most prevalent category of public health first. Thanks for the suggestion.
####################
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:
Carl Asche sent some more text that was added, yet adding more text was a challenge since the paper size limit is 12 pages. So multiple changes were made to accommodate the reviews – hopefully the revised version is found in better shape.
####################
Jacob Barhak
Below is the response submitted by the paper editor Jacob Barhak to the track chair Robert Smith? by email on May 18th 2017.
Response to Review for SummerSim 2017 paper #42 – Population Modeling by Examples III
The response is embedded within the review text below.
First Review Round
Second Review Round
######################################################################
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
####################
RESPONSE:
Apologies for misspelling the name – it was a copy paste error that was corrected in the final manuscript.
Thanks for catching it.
Two sentences were added to the end of the paper indicating that the authors started creating sites online on SimTK. In fact, this was a very good outcome of the review process. It opens the possibility of more centralized mapping of work that will be more accessible that an academic paper. Future effort will be directed in this direction – it is beneficial to all. If this trend grows the reviewer can claim responsibility for starting this – if the reviewer has population modeling colleagues, please let them know about this effort. One intention is to disseminate these papers with the dissemination working group that just formed under IMAG – a centralized web portal would be beneficial.
####################
######################################################################
Robert Smith?
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".
####################
RESPONSE:
The entry of Carl Asche has been enhanced to present techniques and other minor changes were made to fit the text. Since Carl has some important work with modeling domain knowledge in diabetes and re-hospitalization, it was important to keep his contribution in the paper and an effort was made to add depth to it within space limitation. The reviewer was probably confused by the misplacement of the reference of diabetes survey where hospitalization was mentioned – this was corrected and the references were exchanged and made current. The revised text and references demonstrate the domain knowledge expertise of the researcher and the lab.
Another entry by Dan Yamin was slightly updated by the contributor – so now the text better reflect the intentions of the contributor post editing.
Bibliography was inspected and made consistent according to the examples in authors kit – in fact reorganization of the bibliography helped save some space. With some minor changes in other text, it was possible to fit it all in the 12 pages allowed. Other minor changes to the paper were made such as the footer in the first page to indicate the conference name.
The order of authors within each category is still arbitrary – yet omitting the word “arbitrary” is probably better - the fix was made.
Hopefully the chair and reviewers will accept the paper for publication in the current form.
####################
Jacob Barhak
Here are responses after the second revised version:
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.
####################
RESPONSE:
The reviewer is correct there were still grammar errors in the first sentence abstract. This was fixed. Many thanks for noting it. Another pass was made over the paper to improve it.
####################
Robert Smith? The University of Ottawa
Second response: I am satisfied with the edits.
####################
RESPONSE:
Thanks for accepting the paper. The revisions did make it better..
####################