http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/advice-wanted-tp7583766p7583768.html
open access their impact factor has started to climb a bit. It was fairly
On May 20, 2015 8:32 AM, "Maria Y. Boulina" <
> *****
> 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?
>