[ulz_peter]

Hi guys,

Any news about the letter? Did the monday morning train give you a little inspiration ECO?

[marcowanger]

Thank you so much ECO

This and the final revisions of the SEQwiki paper are on my weekend and monday morning train to-do list!

[ECO]

This and the final revisions of the SEQwiki paper are on my weekend and monday morning train to-do list!

[robs]

BTW, for Science correspondence, they said they won't give you reply. I remember you can consider your correspondence failed if they dont publish it within a certain period of time.

That's why it would be nice to have a connection to one of the editors. What is the "certain period" you are willing to wait?

(Sorry for the slight disconnect between the last post and your post. We probably wrote that at the same time.)

[robs]

The Science submission site states that "Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space". Maybe, someone could ask ECO to take a look at it and give some feedback. I actually don't think that there will be many changes coming soon and whoever is going to submit it should set a deadline for people to make changes to the letter.

[marcowanger]

Hi robs. Let's give ECO a job to submit the letter after we finished the letter.

BTW, for Science correspondence, they said they won't give you reply. I remember you can consider your correspondence failed if they dont publish it within a certain period of time.

Letters should be 300 words or less and should discuss an item published in Science in the past 3 months or matters of general interest to our readership. Letters are not acknowledged upon receipt. Whether published in full or in part, Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space.

[robs]

How about this for the final statement:

SEQanswers will continue to provide a platform for open discourse, allowing the rapid dissemination of knowledge and emerging issues to scientists all over the world.

[robs]

@marcowanger

I would probably send the short letter to Science and wait for their reply. They usually get back to you within a week and maybe we get some additional feedback on the letter.
If Science is not interested, we should work on a longer version for PLoS CB and ask editors for support before we even submit it. This way, we might be able to get feedback faster.

[usad]

Hi Marco

sorry I was busy the last few days. I reckon concerning Nature/Science allowing that, we could argue that we worked on this together. In theory it would be open like this, but it would be an interesting case. And none of these rules are set in stone.....

Also in the current trimmed draft there are a lot of what seqanswers is going to do, but that can always sound "overpromising" to the reviewers.

So I would potentially change the wording of SEQanswers is inviting a network of high profile bloggers to bring even more content to the site, thereby stimulating more vibrant discussion.

To include that we already have some bloggers posting here. (Unless you mean bloggers, that are also known beyond the natural sciences)

Cheers,
Björn

[marcowanger]

Robs, yes. Preliminary inquirey to PLoS editor is certainly. My only concern is that Nature/Science Correspondence does not permit the submitted thing to be "appeared" elsewhere.

Then, I propose use

(1) The one in "CONTENT" as the inquiry letter to PLoS Compu Bio.

And

(3) The "Trimmed letter" as the letter to Nat/Sci

do you think it is within Nature/Sci permission? (they are not the same anyway)

This decision is totally up to you. It just sounded like you want me to contact the PLoS Editor and ask him about their interest in a article about SEQanswers. (Btw, they said they will take a look at the letter.) Also, PLoS is an open-access publisher and I am not sure if Science offers open-access.

I removed the last sentence with the stats and added a modified version of collindaven's suggestion for future directions. Take a look at it and see if you agree (especially ECO).
Otherwise, it should be in reasonable shape to be considered for review and if you get ECO's ok, then you should go ahead and submit it to a journal.

[ulz_peter]

Hi robs,
THat was a misunderstanding. I just noted that you edited the Content part only and left the trimmed letter part, and I was asking if that was on purpose.

I agree concerning the future directions, although some statistics would fit in nicely as well (but maybe not at the end...)

[robs]

I assumed that we are working on the letter draft and must have missed the part where it says that we should only modify the content part. Sorry for that.

I think, the SEQanswers community "continues to provide a platform for discourse" and not just the admin or just the users. I also took a look at the alternative suggestions under "Future Directions" and they sound more like a summary than future directions. I personally feel that we need something that wraps everything up at the end and leaves the reader motivated to go and give SEQanswers a try. I don't think that statistics will do that, but future directions might be able to.

[ulz_peter]

I removed the last sentence with the stats and added a modified version of collindaven's suggestion for future directions. Take a look at it and see if you agree (especially ECO).
Otherwise, it should be in reasonable shape to be considered for review and if you get ECO's ok, then you should go ahead and submit it to a journal.

I'm a bit unhappy with "SEQanswers aims" and "SEQanswers continues" as it is not clear for me who you are talking about (admins, users, community as a whole...).

And just to make sure: you wanted to post it in the content part to have it checked before posting it in the trimmed letter, right?

[robs]

This decision is totally up to you. It just sounded like you want me to contact the PLoS Editor and ask him about their interest in a article about SEQanswers. (Btw, they said they will take a look at the letter.) Also, PLoS is an open-access publisher and I am not sure if Science offers open-access.

I removed the last sentence with the stats and added a modified version of collindaven's suggestion for future directions. Take a look at it and see if you agree (especially ECO).
Otherwise, it should be in reasonable shape to be considered for review and if you get ECO's ok, then you should go ahead and submit it to a journal.

[marcowanger]

The reason, the newbies into HTS are not always computer nerd .Remember the target audience

OK robs, I understand what you mean.

Why not send the text to Science / Nature first?

In case they reject, we can transform it as the preliminary inquiry for PLoS Comput Editiorial