[marcowanger]

Sorry but what do you mean with "buzz" words?

Peter, I just personally think the current version is still too "advertisement" like.....lingering how to improve. And well, google ranking does not always reflect popularitu, it can be result of search engine optimization....We should focus on how the forum benefit the community as a whole....the idea is already there...

[marcowanger]

Peter, I just personally think the current version is still too "advertisement" like.....lingering how to improve. And well, google ranking does not always reflect popularitu, it can be result of search engine optimization....We should focus on how the forum benefit the community as a whole....the idea is already there...

The draft #2 looks good to me.

[robs]

The first two paragraphs look good, but the last one needs some more editing and content. We used about 200 words for the first two paragraphs and have enough left to add more things.

[marcowanger]

The first two paragraphs look good, but the last one needs some more editing and content. We used about 200 words for the first two paragraphs and have enough left to add more things.

Differentiation of ourself from BioStar / More on unique FUNCTIONs served by this community / Usage success case.

For usage success case, I have a document for that. I previously prepared it for reviewer...i can find it out and paste it here for reference. It is by no means complete, please add more if you know any..

[robs]

I added some more details to the second paragraph.

As for the use cases, I think the list of publications [2-13] provide sufficient examples.

I think we should try to add some future directions in the last paragraph. Maybe something along the lines of the BioStar "Outlook and Perspectives" part. I will try to add this tomorrow.

[marcowanger]

I added some more details to the second paragraph.

As for the use cases, I think the list of publications [2-13] provide sufficient examples.

I think we should try to add some future directions in the last paragraph. Maybe something along the lines of the BioStar "Outlook and Perspectives" part. I will try to add this tomorrow.

Agree to certain extent, indeed the references are strong support of the community but we should explicitly describe how briefly. Just too vague to say the community has helped a lot of ppl without even telling the reader how speficically.

[marcowanger]

For the "Outlook and perspective". Thanks for that

[dan]

OK, it reads good, but I'd emphasize the 'success' of the platform, which has been driven by the developing technology and the 'information gap' in other media....

i.e.

* NGS takes off.
* Information about NGS becomes crucial asset for everyone.
* Publication / education / conferences / etc. can't keep up.
* Along comes a forum, and takes off in a big way.
** Used in various ways... by various experts...
* Finally:

A forum isn't a traditional scientific medium, but the 'perfect storm' of rapid development in the field, rapid application in the lab, and the slow pace of 'traditional' methods of scientific communication made the forum an ideal communication method for scientists...

As it stands, the paper is like... we made a forum... the forum is big... it is used ... the end.

The key points are the novelty and the success of the site in the scientific arena. People posting results on a forum is unprecedented in recent years, but is exactly what science is about, sharing information.

I don't see the fascination with BioStar. If you start mentioning other projects, the list could be endless. The point of the letter is to emphasize how new and interesting the SEQanswers community is, mentioning the many citations it has already received, how widely used it is, and the cutting edge discussions and announcements that it hosts. e.g. BGI, EBI, NCBI, etc.

Putting the forum in the context of all others projects is a bigger work. Here we need to put the site in the broadest possible context, but nothing else. IMHO.

i.e. If I'm an astrophysicist reading about SEQanswers, what do I want to know? Why am I interested in this project? Do I care because it breaks new ground in building a community around a new field? Or because it's similar to something called BioStar?


Just my 2p.

Dan.

[marcowanger]

Thank you Dan for the direction of the letter we have to aim.

OK, it reads good, but I'd emphasize the 'success' of the platform, which has been driven by the developing technology and the 'information gap' in other media....

i.e.

* NGS takes off.
* Information about NGS becomes crucial asset for everyone.
* Publication / education / conferences / etc. can't keep up.
* Along comes a forum, and takes off in a big way.
** Used in various ways... by various experts...
* Finally:

A forum isn't a traditional scientific medium, but the 'perfect storm' of rapid development in the field, rapid application in the lab, and the slow pace of 'traditional' methods of scientific communication made the forum an ideal communication method for scientists...

As it stands, the paper is like... we made a forum... the forum is big... it is used ... the end.

The key points are the novelty and the success of the site in the scientific arena. People posting results on a forum is unprecedented in recent years, but is exactly what science is about, sharing information.

I don't see the fascination with BioStar. If you start mentioning other projects, the list could be endless. The point of the letter is to emphasize how new and interesting the SEQanswers community is, mentioning the many citations it has already received, how widely used it is, and the cutting edge discussions and announcements that it hosts. e.g. BGI, EBI, NCBI, etc.

Putting the forum in the context of all others projects is a bigger work. Here we need to put the site in the broadest possible context, but nothing else. IMHO.

i.e. If I'm an astrophysicist reading about SEQanswers, what do I want to know? Why am I interested in this project? Do I care because it breaks new ground in building a community around a new field? Or because it's similar to something called BioStar?


Just my 2p.

Dan.

[dan]

Thank you Dan for the direction of the letter we have to aim.

Just my opinion. Feel free to aim in any direction, but the above is what I suggest ;-)

Cheers,

[marcowanger]

Just my opinion. Feel free to aim in any direction, but the above is what I suggest ;-)

Cheers,

You raised an important point everyone has to remember during writing.

If I'm an astrophysicist reading about SEQanswers, what do I want to know? Why am I interested in this project?

[nilshomer]

Check out the Biostar paper.

[dan]

Check out the Biostar paper.

Yeah, I really should.

Here is a rough stab at a new version (just to add to the mix):
http://goo.gl/WL8lE

[dan]

Check out the Biostar paper.

Right! I change my mind, excellent paper and looks like a great project (I didn't use it much yet). This should definitely be referenced, as it presents a lot of the arguments that we want to present in a very clear and thoughtful way.

[adaptivegenome]

I posted some text suggestions and a partial outline of a direction similar to what Dan suggested.

I actually think that the paper might be better as a traditional journal article rather than a letter to Science/Nature that might not get picked for publishing. Something along the lines of the BioStar paper, except instead of screenshots perhaps some informative information gleamed from the posts over the years.

What do you think of something like Genome Biology or Genome Medicine? I know one of the editors at Genome Medicine and I think there could be interest for a paper like this.

Just a thought.