> True, that does present a point of confusion. What we (perhaps not so > obviously) meant was that there are that number of models that are based > on peer reviewed papers.
I see the repository has now been updated, but the new statement is even more confusing and putting more emphasis on the peer review of the underlying CellML model rather than published articles, as I think you actually intend. It would probably more correct and less ambiguous to use something along the lines of: There are currently 473 CellML models in this model repository based on 243 unique publications. David. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
