About Haoling Zhang
Haoling Zhang is a Ph.D. candidate at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, working in the laboratory of Prof. Jesper Tegnér. He holds a bachelor's degree in software engineering and subsequently spent five years at BGI Research working in bioinformatics while also receiving training in computational intelligence from Prof. Tegnér. He also serves as an early-career-researcher reviewer for Springer Nature. His current work focuses on the modeling of biological sequences, with an emphasis on defining and characterizing functional boundaries. He develops noise-resilient machine learning models tailored to high-noise biological environments to enable robust knowledge inference in complex living systems. Haoling has published in high-impact journals such as Nature Computational Science and Nature Communications.
Recent Comments
Haoling
Apologies for the formatting issue in my previous comment — I am reposting the question below in a clearer layout for readability:
In cases where the authors believe that some of the referees' major concerns stem from factual misunderstandings, and they already have a clear plan to address these points through additional targeted experiments, which of the following strategies tends to better align with editorial expectations and workflows?
> Strategy A (Early appeal with a detailed plan): Submit an appeal shortly after the decision, directly responding to the key points raised by the editor and referees, and clearly outlining the planned new experiments and their intended purpose.
> Strategy B (Appeal after new data are obtained): First complete the critical experiments and generate the new data (e.g., over one to two months), and then submit the appeal using these results as primary supporting evidence to address the major concerns.
From an editorial perspective, is one of these generally preferable in terms of efficiency and clarity of evaluation? Many thanks for your time and insight.
Warm regards,
Haoling
Haoling