Next Article in Journal
Influenza A and B Viruses in Fine Aerosols of Exhaled Breath Samples from Patients in Tropical Singapore
Next Article in Special Issue
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine Design Using Structure-Based Machine-Learning Models
Previous Article in Journal
Sequence-Based Antigenic Analyses of H1 Swine Influenza A Viruses from Colombia (2008–2021) Reveals Temporal and Geographical Antigenic Variations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Navigating the Landscape: A Comprehensive Review of Current Virus Databases
 
 
viruses-logo
Article Menu

Article Menu

Conference Report
Peer-Review Record

The International Virus Bioinformatics Meeting 2023

Viruses 2023, 15(10), 2031; https://doi.org/10.3390/v15102031
by Franziska Hufsky 1,2, Ana B. Abecasis 1,3, Artem Babaian 1,4,5, Sebastian Beck 6, Liam Brierley 1,7, Simon Dellicour 1,8,9, Christian Eggeling 1,10, Santiago F. Elena 1,11, Udo Gieraths 12, Anh D. Ha 13, Will Harvey 14, Terry C. Jones 1,12,15, Kevin Lamkiewicz 1,2, Gabriel L. Lovate 1,2, Dominik Lücking 16, Martin Machyna 17, Luca Nishimura 1,18,19, Maximilian K. Nocke 1,20, Bernard Y. Renard 1,21, Shoichi Sakaguchi 22, Lygeri Sakellaridi 23, Jannes Spangenberg 1,2, Maria Tarradas-Alemany 24, Sandra Triebel 1,2, Yulia Vakulenko 25, Rajitha Yasas Wijesekara 26, Fernando González-Candelas 1,11,27, Sarah Krautwurst 2, Alba Pérez-Cataluña 1,28, Walter Randazzo 1,28, Gloria Sánchez 1,28 and Manja Marz 1,2,29,30,31,32,*add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Viruses 2023, 15(10), 2031; https://doi.org/10.3390/v15102031
Submission received: 10 July 2023 / Revised: 8 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 30 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Virus Bioinformatics 2023)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript of Hufsky et al. is a conference report, and as such it fulfills the purpose. The introduction and the factual information about the conference are appropriate and provide all necessary details.

What I did not like is the way individual contributions are presented. Talk abstracts were copied to the manuscript without any change and thus keeping  all usual grammatical constructs such as "we found" "we report" "we conducted" "our results" etc. I found only one case where a minor adaptation was made: while presenting the work of Terry Jones "I will present" was changed to "The talk presented".

This is not how conference reports are usually written. Instead, I would expect the authors to present an intelligent digest of the contributions and of the scientific highlights. In its present form the main bulk of the paper is simply the abstract book of the conference. I do not know whether or not this is compatible with the journal policy. If this is in line with the policy, I recommend to round up the actual text of the report with some kind of a conclusion and then to state: "Below follow the abstracts of conference talks" without any further intervention. The fact that the paper presents all the talk abstracts should also be mentioned in the paper abstract. The current statement "The report provides a summary of the key research findings and highlights shared during the meting" is not true - the report does not actually provide a summary of the key research findings and highlights.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer very much for the very valuable comments. We hope to meet now better the interests of the reviewer. With your help the manuscript is now way better readable. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

NIce conference overview

Minor comments:

Later parts you use the phrase "we" often, but this is a conference overview, so change and check, should be "the authors" or something like this (happened for sure because you distributed the overview to colleagues)

Could there be a concluding discussion, placing the highlights of the meeting against alternative virus and virus bioinformatics meetings:

Which virus highlights you mentioned are particular striking and not reached in other virus conferences?

Which bioinformatics methods highlights (e.g. probably your ultra-massive data analysis or your AI parts) against other bioinformatics conferences.

Then the reader has a nice take-home message.

 

However, overall, very nice review and overview.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We have included the suggestions into the manuscript and we are happy to have it better readable now. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the revision.

Back to TopTop