http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/advice-wanted-tp7583766p7583776.html
> *****
> 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.
> *****
>
> Dear Maria
>
> 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.
>
> More details at
> cirklo.org (follow the prize link)
>
> Good luck with your application!
>
> All the best
> Nuno Moreno
>
> > 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?
>