http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/advice-wanted-tp7583766p7583769.html
impact, just on scientific correctness. The one paper I published there
was a fairly easy process. It is open access with publishing charges.
> *****
> 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.
> *****
>
> Have you considered an Engineering journal like SPIE Biophotonics? They
> might be more appreciative of a sampling technique, and since they went
> open access their impact factor has started to climb a bit. It was fairly
> exclusive before going open.
>
> Craig
> On May 20, 2015 8:32 AM, "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?
>>
>