[FieldTrip] Is FieldTrip valid? A reviewer doubts it...

[Davide Rivolta]

Hi Stan,

Yes, I did indicate that it is an open source Matlab toolbox. 
Thanks!
Davide

Sent from my iPad

> On 8 Jan 2015, at 18:32, Pelt, S. van (Stan) <stan.vanpelt at donders.ru.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi Davide,
> 
> I presume that you did mention that Fieldtrip is a(n open source) Matlab toolbox, not a stand-alone piece of software.
> 
> Good luck with the resubmission!
> Stan
> 
> Op 8 jan. 2015 om 19:28 heeft "Davide Rivolta" <drivolta81 at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Dear Robert,
>> 
>> Many thanks for your kind reply. Yes, I fully cited FieldTrip in the original submission. 
>> It is indeed a good idea to list all the papers that have used FT. I will follow all your advice.
>> 
>> Bests,
>> Davide
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 8 Jan 2015, at 17:13, Robert Oostenveld <r.oostenveld at donders.ru.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Davide,
>>> 
>>> Ideally reviewers have expertise in all aspects of the paper that they review. But reviewers are not all-knowledgeable and hence it shoudl not come as a surprise that a reviewer might not be able to properly assess certain aspects of the study.
>>> 
>>> I don’t know how you referred to the software that you used in your analysis, but presume that you cited the FieldTrip reference paper. In the response to the reviewer you could furthermore point out http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/publications. Note that I still should update it for 2014. Alternatively, you could point to http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5316958122258245287&scisbd=1 which automatically lists all papers that have cited our reference paper. You might also point out that Joaching Gross (who should be considered “the" authority on DICS) is using the same FieldTrip software himself. 
>>> 
>>> Showing these citations of scientific papers prior to yours that have relied on the FieldTrip software is still no argument for it being “validated software”. But I hope that it raises the confidence of the reviewer that the software you used is not the result of a toy project. Formally validated software is in general difficult to come by, and I would actually be curious as to which software packages the reviewer considers as “validated" for MEG analysis.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 08 Jan 2015, at 13:26, Davide Rivolta <drivolta81 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> I have recently used FT (and DICS in particular) for the analysis of a pharmaco-MEG study.
>>>> 
>>>> One of the reviewers of our submitted manuscript is not fully convinced about FT. Here is his comment: 
>>>> 
>>>> "More details regarding what software was used to implement the beamforrmer is important to properly assess the validity of the results. It does not appear that the authors used currently available validated software to perform this analysis". 
>>>> 
>>>> What would your reply? 
>>>> I expect angry emails from you  : )
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Bests,
>>>> Davide
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> fieldtrip mailing list
>>>> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>>>> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fieldtrip mailing list
>>> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>>> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>> _______________________________________________
>> fieldtrip mailing list
>> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20150108/b75df2f0/attachment-0002.html>