Friday, June 1, 2012

Revised version of first PLoS ONE paper

The first paper has been revised after the reviews came back and is now sent back to PLoS ONE. We've given a detailed response to all points raised by the reviewers.

The supp. info. has also been submitted to arXiv.org as a separate submission, but as it needs to be published as well, I am still waiting for that to happen. This post will be updated to reflect it.

update June 5th, 2012: The updated pre-print is now available. However, it appears that you cannot have separate supplementary material submissions which makes sense if you ask me. There is, however no way to include this material other than append it to the raw tex-file which really puzzles me. Right now the supplementary material is thus not really available to anyone but the reviewers. sigh.

A few notes about the re-submission process. The first submission came back stating:

1.  Can you please upload an additional copy of your revised manuscript that does not contain any tracked changes or highlighting as your main article file.  This will be used in the production process if your manuscript is accepted.  Please amend the file type for the file showing your changes to Revised Manuscript w/tracked changes. Please follow this link for more information: http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-submit-your-revised-manuscript/

2.  Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

3.  Please ensure that you refer to Supplementary Table S3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the table.

Its actually nice that points 2 and 3 were found as it was some mishap in the latex-referencing that went unnoticed. Silly thing when your equation numbers and your figure numbers align.

Regarding the first point, it was not entirely obvious that they wanted both the tagged (which I submitted) and the un-tagged - moreover, they request the PDF file "for publishing" which is even more weird. Alas, I ended up submitting both and are now hoping this will satisfy the PLoS ONE staff.
Post a Comment