http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/advice-wanted-tp7583766p7583767.html
Its is true that there is little room for methodologies developed in core facilities. They might be of great value for the community but scientifically not so relevant or new.
This was one of the reasons why we just release an award targeting exactly this kind of work. The award has international and independent reviewers. Therefore, on top of the prize (a macbook for you and our software for 2 years for your institution), there is also the international recognition.
> On 20 May 2015, at 15:30, Maria Y. Boulina <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Folks,
>
> I need your advice on what to do with a manuscript. The story is, we have been working
> on a quantification protocol for a while with a student on her large-scale imaging project.
> We spent some brain power on it, so at the end, we have decided to publish it as a small
> methods paper. the novelty of our approach was applying the Nyquist sampling rate to
> the target object size, rather than the confocal system output AND adequate post-
> processing. we have shown that 1)our suggested algorithm works well in terms of
> preserving the number of counts acquired, compared to higher sampling rates; and allows
> to keep image size/sampling density/imaging time about several fold lower than you
> would do standard 2)if you neglect proper sampling rates (linked to the object size!) or
> skip processing, your results suck.
>
> we have sent the paper to two journals, and received three sets of comments
>
> reviewer 1: overall correct, but...nothing new .. AND(!!)... In many studies,
> photobleaching is a major determinant of the spatial sampling rate to use
>
> other journal
>
> reviewer 2:
> ..a pipeline for speckle counting on the CellProfiler example page that seems relevant...
> and..the use of passive voice throughout makes it a difficult and dry read..
>
> reviewer 3:
>
> The authors fail to demonstrate that using this method increases the accuracy of their
> quantitation (We were aiming at preserving the accuracy and minimizing the effort!!).
>
> This method is not broadly applicable (???, almost every lab has to quantify images).
>
> My main idea behind submitting the manuscript was, that its always nice to have an
> example of a working protocol, and sampling rate is something often neglected (see
> comments from reviewer 1). I have seen tons of very smart grad students, who need to
> do quantification, but end up performing manual counting on their images, since adapting
> existing protocols is beyond their available effort. On the other hand, I am personally not
> qualified to go deep into physics and math behind sampling according to the PSF of the
> system vs sampling based on object density. However, I know that sampling below
> Nyquist is hot in medical imaging field now.
>
> I can not publish the full method within the main paper from the study. Quit? Try other
> microscopy journals? Publish on the Core's webpage?