Note: this is the general part of the submitted review; I left out the things that I expect might change if revisions are made.
Also see Thoughts on the Assemblathon 2 paper.
Re the Assemblathon 2 paper <http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5406>,
Bradnam et …
There are comments.
(Also see Assemblathon 2 review, round 1, parts thereof)
I just finished reviewing the Assemblathon 2 paper, in which many of the extant de novo genome assembly pipelines were evaluated against three different organismal data sets. (I'll post the review when I can.) Good paper.
To me, the biggest outcome …
read moreThere are comments.
One of the things that I have struggled with over the years is how to teach people how to actually program -- by this I mean the minute-to-minute process and techniques of generating code, more so than syntax and data structures and algorithms. This is generally not taught explicitly in college …
read moreThere are comments.
I received this letter in the mail the other day. Can anyone help?
---
Dear Dr. Abby,
I am at a top-50 R1 research institution, and we are currently conducting faculty hiring searches for a number of professors in biology. The applicant pool has been stunningly good this year, and we …
read moreThere are comments.
I was a reviewer on Boisvert et al., Ray Meta: scalable de novo metagenome assembly and profiling, and (as with DSK: k-mer counting with very low memory usage) I thought I'd share my review.
(Sorry, it's really short. My first round review had some comments that they handily addressed in …
read moreThere are comments.
Why do I blog?
I've been blogging now for almost 8 years, since around when Grig Gheorghiu started the Southern California Python Interest Group. Since then I've gotten a PhD, taken a postdoc, had one child, started a faculty position, had another child, and basically gotten way, way busier. Why …
read moreThere are comments.