Originally posted by ulz_peter
View Post
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Originally posted by marcowanger View PostAs genericforms has mentioned, "Reading" is too generic.
I would in favor in replacing "reading" with "Collective Intelligence in decoding", so.
"SEQanswers, Collective Intelligence in Decoding Biological Sequences since 2007"
Suppose:
"SEQanswers: Leveraging collective intelligence to decode biological sequences."
I envision the title would summarize our argument in a single sentence.
Or simply:
"Leveraging collective intelligence to decode genomic data."
These titles I think would help attract a broader audience and sound more formal in tone.
Comment
-
I think "SEQanswers: Leveraging collective intelligence to decode biological sequences." is a nice title.
I would recommend to go for Genome Biology or PloS Biology. SEQanswers is widely used outside the medical field (plant sicence etc.) so I am worried that Genome Medicine has too narrow audience.
Comment
-
Sounds nice, but...
Title needs to be accurate and ring true, for my taste. "Read" is one of the terms used most often by the many experts who have posted regularly on the forum over the years. Clearly validated by genericforms' word counts. It is one of the terms emerging that specifically characterizes the field.
Just imagine if you will, "Short decode archive".
"As genericforms has mentioned, "Reading" is too generic." Not true. (see above) It is used as a new verb generated from the root word, read (see above).
As far as sounding like an advert--really, how likely in a scholarly journal? The factual nature of a title can extend well beyond the reach of any statement limit or aggrandized editorialized conclusion. Application of formality does not = solid/established science.
Please keep it factual and inclusive of any and every aspect of the extant uses of the technology. It's not enough to hit just parts of the field.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joann View PostTitle needs to be accurate and ring true, for my taste. "Read" is one of the terms used most often by the many experts who have posted regularly on the forum over the years. Clearly validated by genericforms' word counts. It is one of the terms emerging that specifically characterizes the field.
Just imagine if you will, "Short decode archive".
"As genericforms has mentioned, "Reading" is too generic." Not true. (see above) It is used as a new verb generated from the root word, read (see above).
As far as sounding like an advert--really, how likely in a scholarly journal? The factual nature of a title can extend well beyond the reach of any statement limit or aggrandized editorialized conclusion. Application of formality does not = solid/established science.
Please keep it factual and inclusive of any and every aspect of the extant uses of the technology. It's not enough to hit just parts of the field.
Our paper is not about word usage or even about the current topics of the forum. Its not about the Wiki or site at all, really. Our paper is about the fundamentally different approach to advancing and sharing science. And SeqAnswers is a case study in this new approach.
Therefore, while I do agree with you, to be true to the content of the paper we are drafting, I think the revised titles are better one-sentence summaries.
Comment
-
different
Originally posted by genericforms View PostOur paper is about the fundamentally different approach to advancing and sharing science. And SeqAnswers is a case study in this new approach.
While SEQanswers could be the subject of a case study about a fundamentally different approach to advancing and sharing science, this letter is an insufficient vehicle to represent a case study of it. Elaborating a case study is a much more detailed undertaking and would involve significant expansion of many topics only touched upon during our preliminary discussions over the letter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joann View PostSo far, the goal of this forum project has been simply to create a brief letter attempting to describe/summarize the forum as it has existed over the last 4 years, especially since it has given rise to the WIKI as a separate entity and has (in the manner of many databases over the years both extant and defunct) recently resulted in a brief, format driven description in the yearly NAR special issue.
Anyways, let's just get everyone's input and go from there. I think all these titles are nice.
We need to finalize a title, authors, abstract, etc. because PLOS journals do ask for a virtually complete submission (everything minus the actual text) before they will consider a presubmission inquiry.
Comment
-
Summary in letter, not title.
Again, I would caution that the summary--in the name of all SEQanswers forum participants--
is provided by the letter content, not any particular title. The job of the title should be to truly represent the actual forum, not editorialize, in a letter
signable by any member participant who wishes to do so.
Leveraging collective intellegence...can you even find that phrase on the forum...
is the title of a full article that might be written by a group of authors with a particular viewpoint. As such they would be responsible for founding their perspectives with concrete examples taken from the forum records. For example, who is leveraging what collective intelligence for what specific purpose or project. It will take many pages to answer this, not a title claiming it or the text of a letter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by marcowanger View PostCurrent status:
1> Genome Medicien (positive feedback, see wiki for editor's reply)
2> Genome Biology (inquiry sent)
3> PLoS Biology (to be done)
4> PLoS Computional Biology (to be done)
Have you heard back from Genome Biology? Or is Genome Medicine our only response so far?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joann View PostLeveraging collective intellegence...can you even find that phrase on the forum...
Do you guys think we should start expanding the article already?
Comment
-
Originally posted by ulz_peter View PostI don't quite see why these words have to appear in the forum for being able to use them in the title. Anyways, I agree that the word "reading" might lead to a wrong perception of the article, as (at least most of us here) we are analyzing the data beyond mere reading.
Do you guys think we should start expanding the article already?
Keypoint: Write about Open Science, collaboration, how collective intelligence work. Joann is right, we need to demonstrate some cases for that. Please read the BioStar's paper to see how they describe the success case. We can learn from them (how to write).Marco
Comment
-
"most of us here) we are analyzing the data beyond mere reading".
Yet all do work that starts from the basic unit, which is the "read". This is a key feature of high through put sequencing and its analyses. And unmistakably demonstrated from a whole analysis of the posts on this forum.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joann View Post"most of us here) we are analyzing the data beyond mere reading".
Yet all do work that starts from the basic unit, which is the "read". This is a key feature of high through put sequencing and its analyses. And unmistakably demonstrated from a whole analysis of the posts on this forum.
If it's used in the title "Reading the genome", then the word "read" is used in another context, which is not the original meaning used in the forum.Marco
Comment
-
"Reading the genome" it is true, implies much more annotation past the initial raw dataset, which arrives in the form of reads--whether genomic or RNA, etc. Furthermore, there is much technical effort focused in this forum, and rightfully so, on the quality of the initial raw reads. One of the benefits of this forum is exposure to the many facets of the technology currently in the hands of many different investigators.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
While isolating and preparing single cells for sequencing was historically the bottleneck, recent technological advancements have shifted the challenge to data analysis. This highlights the rapidly evolving nature of single-cell sequencing. The inherent complexity of single-cell analysis has intensified with the surge in data volume and the incorporation of diverse and more complex datasets. This article explores the challenges in analysis, examines common pitfalls, offers...-
Channel: Articles
06-06-2024, 07:15 AM -
-
by seqadmin
Technological advances have led to drastic improvements in the field of precision medicine, enabling more personalized approaches to treatment. This article explores four leading groups that are overcoming many of the challenges of genomic profiling and precision medicine through their innovative platforms and technologies.
Somatic Genomics
“We have such a tremendous amount of genetic diversity that exists within each of us, and not just between us as individuals,”...-
Channel: Articles
05-24-2024, 01:16 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, Today, 02:20 PM
|
0 responses
9 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
Today, 02:20 PM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-07-2024, 06:58 AM
|
0 responses
181 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-07-2024, 06:58 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-06-2024, 08:18 AM
|
0 responses
228 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-06-2024, 08:18 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-06-2024, 08:04 AM
|
0 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-06-2024, 08:04 AM
|
Comment