8 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2014
    1. our


    2. For example, slicing a set of ordered series data by rows (spectral dimension) and columns (temporal dimension) is quite simple:

      This is indeed a simple example. However, could you provide a few non-trivial use cases that are made really simple?

    3. Top: Absorbance

      These figures are also missing axes labels.

    4. The simulation codebase may be found

      Include this link in the abstract/introduction.

    5. Temporal evolution

      Figures have no labeling on the axes.

    6. relevant plasmonic

      relevant to plasmonic

    7. Despite these benefits, nanobiosensing research in general is faced with several hinderances.

      Despite these benefits, several issues impede nanobiosensing research.

    8. A Computational Framework for Plasmonic Nanobiosensing

      Quality of the approach: meets Quality of the writing: meets Quality of the figures/tables: below

      Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it?


      Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:

      • explain why the problem is important --> yes
        • describe in which situations it arises --> yes outline relevant previous work -> cannot judge provide background information for non-experts -> yes

      Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?

      the article does provide some background that made it easier for me to follow, but i simply do not have expertise in the underlying domain.

      Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?

      appears to.

      Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained? Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?

      these are primarily driven by the need for a simple way to interact with the sensors.

      Is the paper factual correct? Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality?

      there are a few typos that i have noted, but otherwise yes.

      Are the conclusions justified?

      yes - from the perspective of simplicity.

      Is prior work properly and fully cited?

      i cannot comment on this.

      Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain. In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).