This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 17, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
/
Copy pathcover-2020-05-18.txt
46 lines (34 loc) · 2.17 KB
/
cover-2020-05-18.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for your feedback on our paper "Ten Quick Tips for Making Things
Findable". We have incorporated major points of feedback, and hope that this
revision addresses the issues that the reviewers raised. The file
"10-findable.pdf" is the updated version, while "second-submission-changes.pdf"
highlights alterations.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sarah Lin & Greg Wilson
Response to reviewers:
- We have not included a bullet list of tips at the start of the paper since
this does not seem to be done in other papers of this kind. We would be
happy to do so if the editor prefers.
- We have clarified in the introduction and elsewhere who the tips are for.
- We have been more explicit that the software tools or platform used are part
of the whole equation.
- References to sources on general web usability have been added; we have also
added a comment to clarify that our focus on findability is narrower.
- We have clarified tip 9 as requested by the first reviewer.
- The second reviewer asked for "some kind of admonition or advice for telling
me how to decide on where to draw the line in choosing what audience I will
serve". We believe that this is so situation-specific that any general rule
is too anodyne to be useful; as an alternative, we have reinforced our advice
to "a handful of users to ask for findability feedback".
- We have tried to make Tip 2 more concrete.
- Reviewer #2 wrote, "Since this is being published in PLOS Computational
Biology, I have at least some expectation that this paper would be organized
in service of biologist's specific circumstances." We have tried to take a
wider view because we believe that (a) a great deal has already been written
about the specifics of annotating genome sequences and other domain-specific
material, and that (b) partly as a result, researchers have not paid nearly
enough attention to "the other 90%" of the information the rely on.
- Reviewer #2 also wrote, "...while I don't think most biologists will present
data in the form of their own website and database..." Our experience has
been that many do, but we do not know of any data on proportions.