Talk:Sfold

Resubmission
In this resubmission, eight new independent references were added (11, 12, 15, 16-20), to address the editor’s comment. In addition, references 21-25 are also from independent sources. All together, a majority of the references are from independent sources. DOHrennie (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission 2
The feedback from the last round of review is very helpful for us to substantially revise the

page suitable for Wikipedia. Specifically,

1) We have removed some materials to improve the neutrality of the contents

2) We have drastically reduced the number of references associated with the creators to

four, and increased the number of closely relevant references of independent sources to

15

We believe this version shall meet Wikipedia requirements and look forward to further editorial review. DOHrennie (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we" you are referring to? How many people are operating the DOHrennie account? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just me.  DOHrennie (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . OK, so who is "we"? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You will notice from the conflict of interest statement, that I am one of the developers of the software. I did consult with others in my lab to make sure I was not misrepresenting anything, and because I am a less that stellar writer.  The final form of the page is mine.  "We" is traditional in scientific papers because it reflects there are always many who contribute to the work.  Hope that provides you with what you want.  This 'we' think comes up on every submission.  I should just change it to 'I'. DOHrennie (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission 3
In this revision, 6 new references were added (8, 10, 12, 13, 25). Among these, 10, 12, 13, and 25 are independent sources.

Altogether, there are a total of 25 references. 5 references (1,2,3,6, 8) were published by the developers of Sfold. The other 20 references are from independent sources. The verifiable independent support references can be classified as follows:

1)    Extensive discussion of Sfold algorithms in a review or a large-scale use of the Sfold predictions in a scientific study (reference 7,9,10,12,13)

2)    The adaptation of Sfold fundamental ideas of sampling and centroid predictions in other RNA and computational biology problems (reference 15 -19), indicating broad impact.

3)    Implementation of Sfold’s stochastic sampling approach by two popular competing software (reference 20, 21). Copying by competitors is perhaps the best form of compliment.

4)    Highlight of Sfold by Science and Nature (reference 24, 25), two journals that are considered to be of highest scientific impact.

This version is believed to have fully met the requirements for a Wikipedia article. DOHrennie (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)