Commit f4a1f1f1 authored by Jerome Mariette's avatar Jerome Mariette

No commit message

No commit message
parent c4ab8d65
......@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ of jvenn that have not be adequately described.}
The organisation of the paper has been modified. The section ``implementation''
is now described by 5 sub sections: ``Inputs'', ``Display features'',
``Outputs'', ``Web application'' and ``Performances''. The ``Results &
``Outputs'', ``Integration'' and ``Web application''. The ``Results &
Discussions'' section has been splited into 2 distincts sections.
......@@ -111,7 +111,9 @@ several functionalities" - move figure reference to end of sentence.\newline
- Conclusion: "whoever has some JavaScript programming" is too
informal. Refer to comment from Reviewer 1 in first round of reviews\newline}
Taken into account.
Taken into account. The sentence ``whoever has some JavaScript programming \ldots''
has been replaced by ``jvenn allows programmers having only moderate JavaScript
experiences to embed Venn diagrams in a web page without dependency.''
\textbf{-- REVIEWER 2 --}
......@@ -140,14 +142,17 @@ any proof that they do simplify...)
"the display can be switched to Edwards-Venn" - method
"gives a clearer graphical representation for six list diagrams" - result.}
ok
The paper has been fully re-organised and a complet example of jvenn usage has
been added in the ``Results'' section.
\textbf{"whoever has some" - this sounds very hand wavy! I know what you mean
but try to make it sound more appropriate for a paper. "programers with moderate
Javascript experience"?}
Taken into account.
This sentence has been replaced by: ``jvenn allows programmers having only
moderate JavaScript experiences to embed Venn diagrams in a web page without
dependency.''
\textbf{fix: "Venn diagramS with up to four lists are easy to read and
......@@ -164,6 +169,7 @@ beginning of the second sentence is a little ambiguous... qualify it
"It includes, as well, search and intersection identi#ers export functions." - a little
unclear what will be exported}
This section has been fully rewritten.
\textbf{I'm not really satisfied with how the authors addressed my comments
......@@ -188,25 +194,45 @@ biological problem, preferably following this template:\newline
* a short description of how the problem would have been solved otherwise and
how long it would have taken.\newline}
An example provided by M.A. Dillies and colleagues have been added to the paper,
all the analysis steps have been described and compared to VENNTURE the only
tool able to produce six lists Venn diagrams.
\textbf{In contrast, the current Results section is a list of jvenn
functionality; this list belongs in the system description (see reviewer
comments), not in the Results section. See also both reviewer comments regarding
this issue, in both review rounds.}
The tool description has been moved to the ``Implementation'' section which has
been fully re-organised in 5 sub sections: ``Inputs'', ``Display features'',
``Outputs'', ``Integration'' and ``Web application'' .
\textbf{2. The Discussion section needs to iterate over the advantages of using
jvenn, based on the Results above; then list limitations, assumptions in the
approach, its relation to existing software etc. Mimi Zeiger's "Essentials of
Writing Biomedical Research Papers" is an excellent resource in this respect.}
The ``Results & Discussions'' section has been splited into 2 distincts
sections. The discussion describes the benefit using jvenn compared to VENNTURE.
\textbf{3. A short biological motivation should be added to the first paragraph
of the Introduction, and also to the abstract; with specific examples of
biological use of Venn diagrams. Many of the BMC Bioinformatics readers are
biologists, and this is the audience that needs to be convinced to use the
software. The current intro and abstract are too generic.}
An introduction with biological examples has been added in the ``Background''
section and in the ``abstract''.
\textbf{4. The language should be further improved (see individual reviewer
comments).}
The paper has been reed and corrected by an english native speaker.
This paper is unpublished and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.
We would be grateful if you would consider it for publication in BMC
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment