Field methods paper: reviewers comments to second version

@amelia when is our deadline?

We weren’t given one. I can ask him for one.

Well, if we are close to finishing we can ignore that and just submit. Are we? also @melancon?

Been dealing with a very messy and scary stalking/harassment issue for the past week (will fill you in next time we speak in person/real time) so am running a bit behind on my end. But I have blocked out all of tomorrow to finish, so I’ll be ready to submit by then if everyone else is.

Has Likes

So sorry… :rage:

After exchanging a bit about it with Guy, we could also propose something like this:


The LinLog layout can help distinguishing some type of communities while the nodes’ colors represent the communities computed according to Louvain. The size of the nodes indicates the degree.
And as expected, it’s impossible to follow what is happening with the edges in the middle!

The resolution needs to be a bit high to distinguish the labels but it does not help with legibility if we need to insert it into the pdf.
Also, note that the layout have been distorted to avoid overlapping and allow label readability.

Has Likes

Thanks @jason_vallet
Following @alberto I believe the map, the static image of it, is not fit to be inserted in the paper.
I am quite amazed by the work you did to turn it into something as readable as possible (arap).

@amelia and I submitted the third rewrite and the second letter to the reviewers yesterday.

Now we wait. @melancon @jason_vallet

Thanks guys
How did you deal Wwith the word count in the end?

Best,
Guy

We submitted as it is. They will get back to us if they need a cut.

Apologies @amelia, I checked in after a while… am I still in time to take action?

Did you hear back yet, did the paper make it through?

Has Likes

No, not yet. The third submission ended up being too long (LaTEX and word count is a but of a mismatch), so we had to cut some more and re-re-re-submit. @amelia took care of this. She is also the corresponding author, so she is one step closer to the journal than the rest of us.

Has Likes

Haven’t heard anything yet…

OK, another (very, very annoying) word count issue.

The editor has emailed to say that even though we are at 6000 words of word count, the space that the figures take up count as words.

Editor says: “you have 5 figures and those figures make up more than 1000 words of space”

So we have a decision to make – drop some figures or drop some words. Seems a shame to lose the figures but I don’t see how we can possibly delete another 1k. Thoughts?

@alberto @melancon @markomanka

Has Likes

Can we have the figures somewhere else? Like an additional materials section online, but not on the paper version?

I think figures 1 and 2 can go. 3 and 4 have to stay. 5 very helpful but not completely necessary.

Checking now.

Authors may also choose to place supplemental materials (appendices, graphs, data tables, etc.) in a separate, online space. These materials do not count toward the article word limit, but they must be ancillary to the main article and must be formatted by the author.

I still think we need at least figure 3 in the main text and really figure 4 as well. The other 3 we can put online.

They say allow 100 words per inch for the figures. So leaving those 1 or 2 still requires cutting more content. What do you think?