[cellml-discussion] clarification required?

[David Nickerson]

> 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.