Consensus statement (submitted)
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: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s... (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
Dear Kareem, great to see this submitted. Thanks a lot for leading this effort and for all the heavy lifting! Best, Robert -- Dr. Robert Prevedel Group Leader Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit European Molecular Biology Laboratory Meyerhofstr. 1 69117 Heidelberg, Germany Phone: +49 6221 387-8722 Email: robert.prevedel@embl.de http://www.prevedel.embl.de
On 12.11.2024, at 15:59, Kareem Elsayad <kareem.elsayad@meduniwien.ac.at> wrote:
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: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s... (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
_______________________________________________ Consensus mailing list -- consensus@biobrillouin.org <mailto:consensus@biobrillouin.org> To unsubscribe send an email to consensus-leave@biobrillouin.org <mailto:consensus-leave@biobrillouin.org>
Fingers crossed Appreciate the great organization Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, Juergen ------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Jürgen Czarske Head of Laboratory of Measurement and Sensor System Technique Director of Institute of Circuits and Systems Director of Competence Center Biomedical Computational Laser Systems (BIOLAS) TUD | Dresden University of Technology Fakultät Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik / Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering Institut für Grundlagen der Elektrotechnik und Elektronik / Institute of Circuits and Systems Professur für Mess- und Sensorsystemtechnik / Chair of Measurement and Sensor System Technique Competence Center Biomedical Computational Laser Systems Co-opted Professor of Physics, Institute of Applied Physics, TU Dresden 01062 Dresden, Germany Tel.: +49 (351) 463-34803 Fax: +49 (351) 463-37716 E-Mail: juergen.czarske@tu-dresden.de<mailto:juergen.czarske@tu-dresden.de> Internet: http://www.lasermetrology.de<http://www.lasermetrology.de/> https://tu-dresden.de/ing/elektrotechnik/iee/mst SPIE OPTICA Student Chapter Dresden: https://dresdenoptik.de Fellow OPTICA (The Optical Society, Washington, DC, USA) Fellow SPIE (The International Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, WA, USA) [59169%3f_ga=2.30102649.779181987.1705022873-1421821846.1704387739] Fellow EOS (European Optical Society, Joensuu, Finland) Fellow IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology, former IEE, London, UK) Fellow IOP - FInstP (Institute of Physics, London, UK) Report 2023: https://tu-dresden.de/ing/elektrotechnik/iee/mst/ressourcen/dateien/professu... PhotoniX, Lensless fiber endomicroscopy in biomedicine, May 2024; 2 x Light Advanced Manufacturing: "Adaptive-Optical 3D Microscopy For Microfluidic Multiphase Flows"– 2024, light-am.com, Single-shot 3D incoherent imaging with diffuser endoscopy – 2024, light-am.com; AI-driven projection tomography with multicore fibre-optic cell rotation, Nature …, 2024 - nature.com https://tud.link/hrzx88 [signature_1795734873] Von: Kareem Elsayad <kareem.elsayad@meduniwien.ac.at> Datum: Dienstag, 12. November 2024 um 22:59 An: consensus@biobrillouin.org <consensus@biobrillouin.org> Betreff: [Consensus Statement] Consensus statement (submitted) 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: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s... (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
thanks Kareem, thanks for all the great job! best giancarlo Il 2024-11-12 22:59 Kareem Elsayad ha scritto:
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:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... [1]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s...
(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
Links: ------ [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... _______________________________________________ Consensus mailing list -- consensus@biobrillouin.org To unsubscribe send an email to consensus-leave@biobrillouin.org
Dear Kareem, thanks to you and all the others who realized this great manuscript! Best Dag -- Prof. Dr. Dag Heinemann Leibniz Universität Hannover Institute of Horticultural Production Systems / <https://www.hot.uni-hannover.de/en/> HOT – Hannover Centre for Optical Technologies Phytophotonics Group Nienburger Straße 17 30167 Hannover, Germany phone: +49 511 762-3171 e-mail: <mailto:dag.heinemann@hot.uni-hannover.de> dag.heinemann@hot.uni-hannover.de web: <http://www.hot.uni-hannover.de/> www.hot.uni-hannover.de / www.igps.uni-hannover.de Von: Kareem Elsayad <kareem.elsayad@meduniwien.ac.at> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. November 2024 22:59 An: consensus@biobrillouin.org Betreff: [extern] [Consensus Statement] Consensus statement (submitted) 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: <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s...> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s...> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s... (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
Dear Kareem, thank you very much for the great work! and thanks to all the authors contributing to this important brick of the biobrillouin house Daniele Il giorno 12 nov 2024, alle ore 22:59, Kareem Elsayad <kareem.elsayad@meduniwien.ac.at> ha scritto: 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: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s... (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 _______________________________________________ Consensus mailing list -- consensus@biobrillouin.org To unsubscribe send an email to consensus-leave@biobrillouin.org
Nice Kareem! Fingers crossed and well done to you, Pierre, and everyone! Cheers, Sal --------------------------------------------------------------- Salvatore La Cavera III Royal Academy of Engineering Research Fellow Nottingham Research Fellow Optics and Photonics Group University of Nottingham Email: salvatore.lacaveraiii@nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:salvatore.lacaveraiii@nottingham.ac.uk> ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0210-3102 ________________________________ From: Kareem Elsayad <kareem.elsayad@meduniwien.ac.at> Sent: 12 November 2024 21:59 To: consensus@biobrillouin.org <consensus@biobrillouin.org> Subject: [Consensus Statement] Consensus statement (submitted) 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: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGMNPmpbKGXNSCoa6obnj_ZyrhTy3JGM/view?usp=s... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y70F3Rf44Legs85xM-74UDr7Pgh5DEuS/view?usp=s... (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 This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored where permitted by law.
participants (7)
-
Czarske, Juergen -
dag.heinemann＠hot.uni-hannover.de -
Daniele Fioretto -
Giancarlo Ruocco -
Kareem Elsayad -
Robert Prevedel -
Sal La Cavera Iii