gweihir - We are on our second round of reviews at a major neuroscience journal and things are looking good for getting it published. A lot of our trouble has come from individuals who don't want multiple comparisons correction to become a mandatory practice in functional imaging.

Ma8thew is correct - the fish had been dead for some time. I purchased it on a Saturday morning, so it was likely from Friday's shipment of seafood.

AC - The paper has been rejected once so far. I won't mention the journal, but it was rejected on an editorial basis before it reached the peer review stage. I can only conjecture regarding why the editor decided to pass on the paper, but it was not (to my knowledge) rejected for any methodological deficiencies. We are currently in the review stage at a second journal and the reviewers had no trouble with our methods, only how we argue for multiple comparisons correction without stepping on too many toes.

As an interesting aside, the poster was also rejected at first. All the peer reviewers thought is was a joke and voted to exclude it from the conference. Once it went before the program committee they realized that, even though we had an odd approach, the conclusions of our data were sound and that we had a very good point to make.

Noundi - It most likely will be published soon. The paper is just working its way through peer review right now. The last set of journal reviewers were quite kind and had very good feedback for us to improve the Salmon story.

Yali - It is a different statistical issue than the Vul et al. non-independence error. While a great many papers have been written on how to complete multiple comparisons correction in fMRI there is still a problem in that not everyone is doing it. This leaves the door open to false positives, the number of which remain unknown.

Hey guys - I am the first author of the Salmon poster. If you have any questions that you would like us to answer then post it as a reply below and I will do my best to respond as soon as I can.

You can find some more information on the poster at the following link:
http://prefrontal.org/blog/2009/06/atlantic-salmon-index/

Best ~ Craig Bennett

I think that we might have different definitions of how good or bad EndNote is. As an individual neuroscience researcher who has his entire PDF library referenced in EndNote it does work well enough, not that I like it. You seem to be approaching it from a more technical standpoint of usability across many disciplines and citation types. There EndNote is indeed trash if you routinely require citations not found in EndNote's templates.

As for the technical rigor of the programming, 99% of the citations I use in my manuscripts are books and journal articles. There might be a few conference presentations, personal communications, and whatnot in there as well, but that is about it. This reduces the scope of the problem to something that IS relatively easy to implement software-wise. The goal of CSL seems to be the creation of a catch-all language that can represent any citation. This is a far different problem in terms of difficulty.