Review by Andrew Lonie
I think the paper has improved from the previous version. The actual lessons listed are useful and add a lot to the paper. I think the authors should spend more time editing and checking...the first…
I think the paper has improved from the previous version. The actual lessons listed are useful and add a lot to the paper. I think the authors should spend more time editing and checking...the first…
I am satisfied that the authors have addressed the issues raised in my original report. There are some minor typographical errors that need correcting. Fig 1 caption. Last sentence looks like an…
Overall, the paper is a descriptive account of establishment and operation of the UPPNEX infrastructure for next-generation sequencing based bioinformatics in Sweden. Although there is interesting…
Resubmission as a commentary. Construction of infrastructure to handle NGS sequencing data is difficult, and there is a lack of publicly available information on best practice and the state of the…