search

RobertsLab / paper-Olurida-gene

Gene expression data and R scripts for analysis
0 stars 1 forks source link

Version reviewers read? #21

Closed sr320 closed 7 years ago

sr320 commented 7 years ago

I would assume reviewers would have read https://peerj.com/preprints/1595/

but the numbers line numbers they refer to do not jive.

Specifically I cannot find "Data not Shown" in lines 149 and 207

What version did they get?

grace-ac commented 7 years ago

They got the correct version but when word doc was changed to pdf or vice versa, the line numbers changed.

So when I added the reviewer comments to the word doc, I looked at the PDF that they had with the line numbers, and then matched that text to the line numbers in the word doc. On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:00 AM Steven Roberts notifications@github.com wrote:

I would assume reviewers would have read https://peerj.com/preprints/1595/

but the numbers line numbers they refer to do not jive.

Specifically I cannot find "Data not Shown" in lines 149 and 207

What version did they get?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RobertsLab/paper-Olurida-gene/issues/21, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOPhKs2knSOAfqITzm7-wCGmsKNfWOPIks5sG-7SgaJpZM4ODz7R .

sr320 commented 7 years ago

But https://peerj.com/preprints/1595/

does not have "Data not Shown" anywhere in the paper

So where is PDF they had?

kubu4 commented 7 years ago

See the end of Issue #1 .

Here's link directly to Reviewer 2's annotated PDF version of what we submitted: https://github.com/RobertsLab/paper-Olurida-gene/blob/master/review-1-137321.pdf

sr320 commented 7 years ago

Thanks

@grace-ac was actually confused about what Oly paper this was ;)

kubu4 commented 7 years ago

Not sure how that could happen! ;)