Dear All,
We finally submitted the manuscript earlier this afternoon (I have yet to receive any confirmation email – which is a bit strange, but online it says submitted and editor assigned).
The final manuscript files (Main Text and Supplementary Text) can be found here:
(also submitted were the reporting tables in zipped format, and template thereof)
I hope we managed to respect/implement your edits/suggestions.. In some cases, compromises had to be made -- but I don’t think these were major. Eitherway, we should have another round to discuss things when we get it back.
About author order. I was checking through what convention is in consensus statements. In the end, I have put Pierre Bouvet and Carlo Bevilacqua up front since they really in my opinion did an exceptional amount of work behind the scenes in making manuscript what it is. I then listed everybody in alphabetic order. I understand some contributed more than others, but please understand we cannot rank contributions of >40 people without going insane (and making someone unhappy). At the end I tack Francesca, Alberto and myself as this was initially planned by us in communication with the editor. I have seen this type of author ordering applied previously in numerous consensus statements (such as recent ones in Nature Energy and Nature Medicine). Less frequently used alternatives are everybody in alphabetic order (more usual for very large consortia), or ranking in terms of contribution (more usual for smaller author lists). I hope this is acceptable for everyone. If anyone has issues with this though let me know and I am ofcourse happy to discuss on amending for resubmission.
In the end it was I think a great group effort (if at times exhausting – it took me forever to enter all your affiliations & info online!). I wanted to thank you all again for your valuable contributions and time - I think we have something quite important that we can all be proud of!
All the best (& I’ll keep you posted with any news on this front),
Kareem