Closed ahwagner closed 4 years ago
In response to code availability comments from EPC_checked and RS_checked, we have added a “code availability” section and restructured other methods sections previously describing code availability as subheaders in this section. The comments from RS_checked under “Life sciences study design” appear to be the default descriptors for these fields, which are not applicable to our study (we are analyzing aggregated data from independent resources, not collecting/reporting data from new biological specimens). We will need additional guidance on how the descriptions we provided may be modified to adequately complete this section, if we should remove our existing descriptions in favor of “not applicable” entries, or if another course of action for completing this form is appropriate. Currently consulting with @obigriffith and @malachig to investigate an inquiry to the editor before submitting full response along with the revised manuscript.
We evaluated our existing tables for the inclusion of additional descriptive text for legends, per the criteria set out in R_extended_comments. We believe that all tables meet these criteria, though we have reformatted per the guidelines indicated (bolding the table titles, and emulating double-spaced text for existing legends by doubling the legend cell height). A new legend was created for Supplementary table S8, to address concerns specific to that table regarding the calculation of p-values. We have also added the raw counts used in the statistic calculation as columns C-F of table S8.
Email sent to editor by @obigriffith on 1/5 at 9:06pm.