Please start contributing to this Wiki!



I suggest that we start working on the REPORT subsection of each section. This should be most straight forward and I think it is important to proceed in small steps.

Please feel free to add and modify content. If you want to add a comment please use this format:

author month/day: comment


joachim 10/10: whatever you think

Thanks for your contributions!

vladimir 3/11: we discussed the guidelines at the FIL methods meeting and I'll put all the comments at the relevant places with 'fil' tag.

fil 3/11: generic comments:
1) for some parts there is too much detail.
2) we should limit ourselves to things which are specific to MEG and remove things which are just good scientific practice (like avoiding bias in subject selection).
3) any strong recommendations we make should be based on evidence from the literature.
4) we should perhaps specifically highlight issues on which there is no consensus in the community as such so that people will know that there is no established standard practice and also to suggest directions for future research and comparison of methods.

Gareth 10/12: I had a go at a possible format for the document possoutline

arjan 4/11: connectivity should be covered

Ideas for publication: (please comment!)

  1. special issue on MEG/EEG software in the journal ‘Computational Intelligence & Neuroscience’ (Ole)
  2. Guidelines section ( of the ISCEV organisation (Arjan)
  3. PLoS One (advantage is that it's peer-reviewed, open-access, good visibility) (Karim)
  4. Journal of Neuroscience Methods (another option worth considering) (Karim)
  5. Karl suggested to look at '10 simple rules' format available in Neuroimage (I'm not sure whether they actually restrict to 10 rules) (Vladimir). Could not find it in the manuscript submission system (joachim) My mistake. He probably meant PLoSCB . Quite interesting papers but probably not what we are looking for. (Vladimir)
Michael 5/11: Two advantages for PLOS ONE: (1) it has a relatively rapid publication process, (b) discussion stays open after publication. The disadvantage is that some publishers do not judge PLOS ONE as peer-reviewd because there is sometimes (usually not) just one reviewer and two are considered minimum.