deletions | additions       diff --git a/abstract.tex b/abstract.tex  index 368fab1..067b6cd 100644  --- a/abstract.tex  +++ b/abstract.tex 
...
Thanks We would like  to all thank  the reviewers for your helpful comments! their insightful comments.  The major weaknesses of this manuscript points  that I've have been  addressed are: are as follows:  \begin{enumerate}  \item I gave It was not our intention to give  the impression that one needs to scan human calibration phantoms at each site to properly power a multisite study with nonstandardized parameters, which is very costly and certainly was not our intention! I have focused on emphasizing the costly. The  statistical model which takes MRI bias into account (that has been emphasized instead. The  bias that  was measured and validated  via calibration, but that is not calibration served to corroborate the scaling assumption of  the central point). statistical model.  \item Compare our Our  measurements have been compared  with other harmonization efforts efforts, specifically \cite{cannon2014, jovicich2013brain} and \cite{Schnack_2004}.  \item Specify the The  scanning parameters of our consortium, by including more paramaters that show the variance of our sites consortium have been better specified.  \item Better address the The  independence assumption between the unobserved effect and the scaling factor for a particular site. site have been addressed. Specifically, we emphasized that this assumption could hold for MS patients based on our experiment. The need to validate this assumption for other situations by scanning human phantoms was stressed, and the equation of variance without the independence assumption has been provided for the readers.  \end{enumerate}