No commit message

No commit message

BMC_jvenn/jvenn_coverletter_ter.tex

@@ -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+This sentence has been replaced by: ``jvenn allows programmers having only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