Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

JoSS Review: Manuscript #21

Closed
vsoch opened this issue Aug 9, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

JoSS Review: Manuscript #21

vsoch opened this issue Aug 9, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
review comment JOSS reviewer comment

Comments

@vsoch
Copy link
Contributor

vsoch commented Aug 9, 2019

This is the start of review for openjournals/joss-reviews#1637.

Manuscript

The introduction does a good job to communicate a statement of need, but I'd like to see a few more references for:

  • the opening statement about MRI being excellent and having diagnostic value (a review paper would work here)
  • a reference on simulators

It would be helpful to flush out the point about vendor neutrality - most that read aren't familiar with MRI
or that there are different companies that make the machines, software, and thus simulators.

General Comments

  • It looks like you defined "MRI" but you didnt' specify "MR" (and use it in several spots)
  • Are you able to bold the sections in the list? I almost missed the headers when I was reading. (and the same for the subsequent lists in the paper)

Very good job on explaining your roadmap, and real life use cases. This is a cool tool I'm excited to see development for.

@vsoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

vsoch commented Aug 23, 2019

Sorry, could you please explain how the issue has been addressed?

@tonggehua
Copy link
Collaborator

  1. We added 4 references that discuss the diagnostic uses of MRI.
  2. We added a reference on open-source simulators (in Supporting table 1 in the Pulseq-GPI paper). However, we couldn't find references to proprietary simulators.
  3. All the "MR"s have been changed to "MRI"s to avoid confusion.
  4. We didn't change the styling since the main headers are already bolded in the PDF (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.01637/joss.01637/10.21105.joss.01637.pdf). If you would prefer the first word after the bullet points to be bold, I can do that.

@vsoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

vsoch commented Aug 23, 2019

Thank you @tonggehua ! I still have most of my review to do - I'll try to do it within the next week (a lot on my plate at the moment!)

@vsoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

vsoch commented Aug 24, 2019

Okay, just checking over the points above now! For the bolding, I am referring to the first word (before the colon) after each section. For example, we would change:

* Modular: ``Virtual Scanner`` consists of modules corresponding to steps in the MRI signal chain [@webb2016magnetic]. Since modern MRI systems contain multiple levels of hardware and software, it is important for researchers to select the appropriate steps for simulation when developing acquisition paradigms, analysis methods, or hardware components. Students may also choose to focus on individual aspects of the experiment.

to

* **Modular**: ``Virtual Scanner`` consists of modules corresponding to steps in the MRI signal chain [@webb2016magnetic]. Since modern MRI systems contain multiple levels of hardware and software, it is important for researchers to select the appropriate steps for simulation when developing acquisition paradigms, analysis methods, or hardware components. Students may also choose to focus on individual aspects of the experiment.

And the difference in markdown (rendered here) is:

  • Modular: Virtual Scanner consists of modules corresponding to steps in the MRI signal chain
  • Modular: Virtual Scanner consists of modules corresponding to steps in the MRI signal chain

Given how it renders, I suggested this change because I missed that there was a small section heading with a colon when I first read. Does that make sense?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
review comment JOSS reviewer comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants