1 / 8

TMO Paper Review

TMO Paper Review. For Publication in: Journal of Biomedical Semantics. Eric Rozell, Tetherless World Constellation. Outline. Journal Scope Paper Review. JBMS Scope.

elden
Download Presentation

TMO Paper Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TMO Paper Review For Publication in: Journal of Biomedical Semantics Eric Rozell, Tetherless World Constellation

  2. Outline • Journal Scope • Paper Review

  3. JBMS Scope • Infrastructure for biomedical semantics, focusing on semantic resources and repositories, meta-data management and resource description, knowledge representation and semantic frameworks, Biomedical Semantic Web, semantic interoperability, and particularly, life-long management of semantic resources. • Semantic mining, annotation and analysis, focusing on approaches and applications of semantic resources and tools for investigation, reasoning, prediction and discoveries in biomedicine.

  4. Scientific Quality • Are the methods appropriate and presented in sufficient detail to allow the results to be repeated? • Ontology design process is not described well enough to be repeatable. • More details on moving from research questions to use cases to ontology. • Are the data adequate to support the conclusions? • Scalability of the knowledge base and reasoning techniques is not addressed. • The data uses only a small number of patient records. • However, work focused on integrative vocabulary, and not a production ready system.

  5. Presentations • Figures: Are they justified? Are they sharp, with lettering proportionate to the size of the figure? Are there legends to explain the figures? • The syntax of Figure 1 is not clear (e.g., the dark blue lines, and the distinction, if any, between vocabularies and datasets) • I couldn’t find a reference to Figure 4, and its significance is not explained well in the figure caption. • Tables: Can they be simplified or condensed? Should any be omitted? • The content in Table 2 does not seem particularly significant, especially since all class mappings are not provided, and it is cluttered and hard to read.

  6. Research Violations • Are the interviews for the development of use cases and research questions classified as research involving human subjects?

  7. Confidential Comments • Provide comments regarding the novelty and significance of the manuscript. • Integrates diverse medical datasets • Details on methods for data integration • Provides use cases for eHRs and integrates eHRs with external data resources • Provide a recommendation about the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal; these comments will not be returned to the author(s). • Has broad coverage of Semantic Web technology applications • Could have more emphasis on the tools that will utilize the technologies presented

  8. Comments for Author • Comments above (except confidential comments) • Authors did not address potential for error in external resources, nor future plans for handling versioning on these resources.

More Related