SummerSim 2016: The Kidney Transplant Process Model (KTPM): Simulation Tool for the Transplant Process - Reviewer Jacob Barhak
Jacob Barhak
| Submission #18 | |
| The Kidney Transplant Process Model (KTPM): Simulation Tool for the Transplant Process | |
| Christine Harvey | |
| Review 2 - Jacob Barhak | |||||||
| |||||||
Comments This paper should be accepted. There may be more reviews arriving from track authors later on, yet this will not change my decision. It is important to note that I solicited this paper from the author who presented this work last year in the student colloquium. Even then it was clear that this is important work with great potential that is in good hands. This promise has now been fulfilled at least in part, since as the author noted, there is much more potential here. Also note that this field needs many more experts. During the search for reviewers I sent roughly 30 invitations for pin pointed domain expert reviewers in two tiers: transplant modeling and liver modeling. I got only one of those domain experts to actually accept the review invitation. This is an unusually small number indicating that there are not enough experts in this field. And indeed several of the experts responded indicating busy status. Having the author work in this important field will be an important contribution considering the workload. Therefore, I am very supportive of this paper and the author. However, some actions are needed before publication: 1. The paper should be formatted according to SummerSim requirements. 2. The author should upload a revised camera ready version with response to reviewers document. Minor issues: Throughout the paper there are many capitalizations of words. The author is clearly used to write code. I have the same habit and recognize this. However, the author will have to make a decision on how to present the paper. There are specific issues below. Format the paper: your Abstract is before keywords in dating you did not use the format. Also, please remove bio at the end. "Deceased Donor" remove caps or quote or italicize to mark a keyword On the second page, table 1 is mentioned twice instead of table 2. Please check enumeration of figures, tables, references through the paper after all revisions. Please explicitly define the OPTN acronyms and remove caps in "Database". Please define GUI. Some readers may not be familiar with the term. Please explain the "ODD protocol" Consider simplifying " The initial setup initially" by removing repetition. Consider removing Caps from: " the Assign Transplant submodel " and in the "the Get Older submodel" you can use quotes or italics instead. Whatever you decide, do this throughout the document. Also, consider doing this for "Deceased Factor" and be consistent and avoid "deceased Factor" and " deceased Donor" that exist in the text, unless you have a specific idea in mind. This is your decision, just be consistent. In "candidates from 2010 to 2012 [1].. " remove double period. "Annual Report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network" It is an important report, yet please reconsider capitalization. Same with " MITRE Goal-Directed Simulation Framework [13]". In "[6, ?]." What is the second reference? If figure 2 the deceased factor range is 1 at most and the crooks hairs are on 0.5. Is this intentional? You vary that factor up to 2. It seems it is a mistake. A few more words will help there. Regarding experiment set 2 in section 5.2 , did you normalize probability to keep number of donors the same. Otherwise, increase in probability means increase in donor number similar to what you checked in section 5.1. A few more words in discussion are appropriate here. If possible and easy, it would be nice to have a validation run added to the paper to show that current numbers can be reproduced. |
Jacob Barhak
This conversation took place upon submission of the final manuscript and includes additional review elements:
######################
Thanks Christine,
This fixes the consistency issue since you are now using the same terminology all over.
I will upload our conversation to the public site as part of my the review.
Thanks for the fast responses.
Jacob
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Harvey, Christine E <ceha...@mitre.org> wrote:
Hello Jacob,
I believe the changes you mentioned are now corrected and there is a new document. Thank you for your feedback.
-Christine
From: Jacob Barhak <jacob....@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:43 PM
To: "Harvey, Christine E" <ceha...@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Do you have a paper to submit for next SummerSim
Ok Christine,
The paper is more consistent now with the text, yet the terminology is now inconsistent with table 4 and Table 5, it is also harder to understand since a deceased factor of 2 no longer means 200% in the new text - at least not in all places it is mentioned.
The problem was with figure 2. Everything else was consistent before. Only figure 2 axes were displaced by -1. Your current fix breaks things elsewhere. Would you consider fixing this so terminology would be consistent all over the paper? Just reverting to the previous version and replacing figure 2 would be sufficient to maintain consistency. Otherwise you will need to make many other changes in the paper.
You see, folk who read the paper may be confused with the results if this is not fixed. And your conclusions seem important.
Can you please look over at it again and fix this?
Apologies for being picky and repetitive, yet I do care and wish your paper would be read by others and have some impact.
I hope you can fix this quickly.
Jacob
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Harvey, Christine E <ceha...@mitre.org> wrote:
Thank you for the head’s up on the issues still in the paper, I have made the corrections and re-uploaded the paper. Thank you again for your help.
Best,
-Christine
From: Jacob Barhak <jacob....@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 30, 2016 at 5:23 PM
To: "Harvey, Christine E" <ceha...@mitre.org>
Cc: José Luis Risco Martín <jlr...@ucm.es>, Floriano <der...@deis.unical.it>
Subject: Re: Do you have a paper to submit for next SummerSim
Thanks Christine,
Your files are all in.
Since Jose is keeping the system open, do double check again.
For example, look again at figure 2. You mention just in the paragraph before a deceased factor of 2.0 and a living factor of 3.0 while your figure shows only 1.0 and 2.0 at most. Considering Table 4 it makes sense that your are showing the difference from the initial point. However, you call it by the same name so the reader, at least this one can get confused - and you do want to pass a clear message to the reader.
Apologies, since I wrote the review on my cell phone, the "cross hair" was garbled and therefore you may have misunderstood my comment.
If you are OK with the final product, let me know and we will keep your final version as is. Hopefully, the misunderstanding is mine and the numbers are ok already.
Jacob