search

smiths / aorta

Other
2 stars 0 forks source link

Review on Meng Report Chapter 2 #62

Closed JovieL25 closed 1 year ago

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

Hello Dr. @smiths,

As you have mentioned in issue https://github.com/smiths/aorta/issues/58, this issue is created for a review on Chapter 2, which I have an update addressing your feedback.

smiths commented 1 year ago

The marked-up version of the latest draft of Chapter 2 is attached. I'm confident that we won't need another round on this chapter, or if we do, that it will be a short review.

Jingyi_Ch2_Fdbck.pdf

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

Hello Dr. @smiths,

For the comment regarding using the acronym, should I write the complete word in the next chapter if I have used the complete words in the previous chapter?

For example, for the "CT" word in Chapter 2, I have written the complete word in Chapter 1, Introduction. Should I write it again on the first encounter in Chapter 2?

image
smiths commented 1 year ago

Technically you are only required to expand an acronym on its first occurrence in a document. (I think you have a table of acronyms. You should add CT to the table, if it isn't already there.) I think for a common acronym like CT defining it once (in Chapter 1) should be fine. For less common acronyms, it is nice to give the reader a reminder, say on the first occurrence in each chapter.

smiths commented 1 year ago

Here is the feedback on Chapter 2. Nothing major. Once you've made the suggested changes, you can close this issue.

Jingyi_Ch2_Fdbck2.pdf

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

Hi Dr. @smiths,

For the comment in section 2.2.4.5, could you find the answer in section 2.2.4.6?

image

If not, I can update this section to point to section 2.2.4.6 and update that section to better clarify.

smiths commented 1 year ago

@JovieL25 please do as you suggested - update the section to point to Section 2.2.4.6. You don't need to modify Section 2.2.4.6.

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

@JovieL25 please do as you suggested - update the section to point to Section 2.2.4.6. You don't need to modify Section 2.2.4.6.

Hello Dr. @smiths,

Can you skim through Chapters 1 and 2 and let me know if we can close these issues? Chapter 1 is mainly for the potential academic integrity issues, I have made changes to include citations and rephrased most parts in my own words.

smiths commented 1 year ago

Yes, you can close the issue for Chapters 1 and 2. I will get you feedback on Chapter 3 soon.

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

Yes, you can close the issue for Chapters 1 and 2. I will get you feedback on Chapter 3 soon.

Hello Dr. @smiths,

Should I merge with the main branch before closing?

smiths commented 1 year ago

Yes, merging would be a great idea.

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

Hello Dr. @smiths,

I am unsure how to address this comment from Dr. Wassyng, the statement is attached below.

image

My comment would be that AC will not affect the development, but one key evidence of GI is that a reviewer understands the implementation and agrees on the methodologies.

JovieL25 commented 1 year ago

I am closing this issue and moved the above comment to Issue https://github.com/smiths/aorta/issues/67