[robs]

I made a few more changes to shorten the text and remove some of the redundancy. Take a look and see if you are ok with the changes. Without the last sentence (the stats), it would be 289 words now.

Some more comments:

1) The reviewers might ask for the number of active users instead of registered users
2) If you want to make it more useful for students, then you could consider a slightly longer article with more content in an open-access journal such as PLoS Computational Biology (in case the science letter doesn't work out)
3) The last paragraph needs some editing to have a better flow between the first and second sentence
4) I would like to see some future directions at the end as well (maybe collindaven's suggestion, but replace "we" with "seqanswers")

[marcowanger]

Robs, perhaps we should consider submitting to PloS comput bio. is there perspective/review type of paper we can submit?

Guess what, let's see current issue of PloS comp bio, the editorial is "ten rules to seek help from online communities"

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002202

Shall we respond? I think we should.

I made a few more changes to shorten the text and remove some of the redundancy. Take a look and see if you are ok with the changes. Without the last sentence (the stats), it would be 289 words now.

Some more comments:

1) The reviewers might ask for the number of active users instead of registered users
2) If you want to make it more useful for students, then you could consider a slightly longer article with more content in an open-access journal such as PLoS Computational Biology (in case the science letter doesn't work out)
3) The last paragraph needs some editing to have a better flow between the first and second sentence
4) I would like to see some future directions at the end as well (maybe collindaven's suggestion, but replace "we" with "seqanswers")

[marcowanger]

This paper is written by Wikigenes member, it is ALSO edited collaboratively at wiki. Go for it!

Robs, perhaps we should consider submitting to PloS comput bio. is there perspective/review type of paper we can submit?

Guess what, let's see current issue of PloS comp bio, the editorial is "ten rules to seek help from online communities"

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002202

Shall we respond? I think we should.

[robs]

If you are worried about the number of authors in a nature publication, you could try to submit it as an editorial instead (http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journa...micro2119.html).

In order to decide where to send it to, we need to figure out if someone has contacts to the editor of the respective journal. If you want to submit to Science or Nature, this might be fastest way to get it out or get feedback for interest in the article. If you consider PLoS, I should be able to help out with contacts.

Based on the selected journal, we should take a look at similar letters/editorial/etc. and modify the text based on that. Going forth and back between a short and long text will just waste time.

So, who knows some editors?

[robs]

One more thing we should start thinking about are the publication charges. Will the SEQanswers site admin cover those from the advertisements, or will it be split between the authors, etc.

[marcowanger]

One more thing we should start thinking about are the publication charges. Will the SEQanswers site admin cover those from the advertisements, or will it be split between the authors, etc.

For the SEQwiki paper, the SEQanswers admin has promised to cover it. For this letter/paper, we may ask again. But don't worry about it for now and write it first. I think whiter it is funded by admin or not won't change our plan.

[marcowanger]

Ya, anyone know some editors?

Originally we planned for science/nature letter type. As you said, their response I'd fast, so why not write for it first? (as it is already almost a finished draft)

In parallel, may Robs you help contact PloS's editor?

Thanks.

If you are worried about the number of authors in a nature publication, you could try to submit it as an editorial instead (http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journa...micro2119.html).

In order to decide where to send it to, we need to figure out if someone has contacts to the editor of the respective journal. If you want to submit to Science or Nature, this might be fastest way to get it out or get feedback for interest in the article. If you consider PLoS, I should be able to help out with contacts.

Based on the selected journal, we should take a look at similar letters/editorial/etc. and modify the text based on that. Going forth and back between a short and long text will just waste time.

So, who knows some editors?

[robs]

I wrote the editor of PLoS Computational Biology and asked if he would support our letter. Let's see what his response is.

One more thing I was missing is a title. Any suggestions?

[marcowanger]

Robs, may you send us the letter draft telling us how it ia written first?

[robs]

When I wrote "letter", I was referring to the one everyone is working on. If you were asking about something else, can you maybe rephrase your question?

[marcowanger]

When I wrote "letter", I was referring to the one everyone is working on. If you were asking about something else, can you maybe rephrase your question?

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.