Reviewer has chosen not to be AnonymousOverall Impression:
AcceptTechnical Quality of the paper:
Limited noveltyData availability:
All used and produced data are FAIR and openly available in established data repositoriesLength of the manuscript:
The length of this manuscript is about right
Summary of paper in a few sentences (summary of changes and improvements for
second round reviews):
The paper defends the position that visualization techniques should be valued as important scientific artifacts in the field of data science, with a specific focus on the visualization of omics data. It does that by exploring, in general terms, what is a visualization, how visualizations are designed, what is their importance, and how they can help with the exploration of large amounts of complex scientific data.
Reasons to accept:
The reasons to accept stay mostly the same as my previous review, as I believe that the new revision did not do anything to change them. I reproduce them here to allow for a self-contained review: First, the role of the paper is not to introduce novel cutting-edge results from a specific research, but to defend a position, as described above (that visualizations are important scientific artifacts) and it does that well, without going too deep in specific problems and challenges. It is well supported by good references, it explores the subject in a broad yet objective manner, and succeeds to communicate its point. It is very well written and easy to read and understand.
Reasons to reject:
In my previous review I mentioned one disadvantage of the paper: while most of the text is developed with general visualization in mind, it mentions that the visualization of omics data is at its core, but very few concrete examples were described, and even those in very few details. I mentioned that, if possible, the author should have described one or two concrete cases of omics visualization in more details, in order to make the paper's position stronger. The author had the chance to write a new revision but chose not to improve this point. One thing that makes this point a bit more critical is that the title of the paper was changed to include the word "omics", making the paper's direction even more obvious, but still there is no concrete example of an omics visualization in the text. There are many references to works that deal with this, but a paragraph with one or two examples would have improved the paper considerably, in my opinion.
" Title: is the apostrophe before 'Omics intentional?
* Abstract: "The experiences described here come from a visualizing..." -> from visualizing
* pg.1, par.2: etc -> etc.
* pg.2, par.1: "information space" -> space 
* pg.2, par.2: "co-ordinates" -> coordinates
* pg.2, par.3: "on the calculating the" -> on calculating the
* pg.3, par.1: "The introduction of data visualization tool" -> either "a data visualization" or "visualization tools"
* pg.3, par.3: "promotes;" -> promotes:
* pg.4, par.2: "Incremental improvements" -> improvement
Meta-Review by Editor
Submitted by Tobias Kuhn on
I agree with the reviewers that the following issues should be addressed:
- Concrete examples with more details should be provided (reviewer 1)
- The logic structure and position should be made explicit (reviewer 2)
- The issue with respect to 3D graph visualizations and hierarchical data should be resolved (reviewer 3)
Tobias Kuhn (http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1267-0234)
Link to Final PDF and JATS/XML Files
Submitted by Tobias Kuhn on