[marcowanger]

One caution for Nature Correspondence:

A Correspondence is usually signed by no more than three authors; this is because Correspondence is a forum for readers' reactions, not for statements by organizations or groups of individuals.

[marcowanger]

I tried to add something to the letter along these lines.

Thanks flxlex

[flxlex]

Sure it may seems to be. I think both SEQ and Biostar are great, and we should definitely acknowledge Biostar in the letter. However, one particular strong point in SEQ Bioinformatics Section is the freedom granted to users to announce their tools, which fostered much discussion beyond question-and-answer style in Biostar. IMO, Biostar does a better job in Q&A. So, both sites serve different purposes.

I tried to add something to the letter along these lines.

[andreas.sjodin]

There is some (considerable?) overlap between the bioinformatics forum at SeqAnswers, and biostar.stackexchange.com. Perhaps we should acknowledge that, and comment that SeqAnswer is targeting a wider audience than just those analyzing data using bioinformatic tools?

I think this a good selling point. The SeqAnswers has a wide community of both wet-lab and computer biologists.

[marcowanger]

There is some (considerable?) overlap between the bioinformatics forum at SeqAnswers, and biostar.stackexchange.com. Perhaps we should acknowledge that, and comment that SeqAnswer is targeting a wider audience than just those analyzing data using bioinformatic tools?

Sure it may seems to be. I think both SEQ and Biostar are great, and we should definitely acknowledge Biostar in the letter. However, one particular strong point in SEQ Bioinformatics Section is the freedom granted to users to announce their tools, which fostered much discussion beyond question-and-answer style in Biostar. IMO, Biostar does a better job in Q&A. So, both sites serve different purposes.

[marcowanger]

Yup, the point of the letter is to focus on the forum, and hopefully publish before the wiki (coming out in January).

For the letter, I think it would be suitable for SCIENCE letter (<400 words) and NATURE correspondence. Both are meant to be short. So, let's write everything first and pick the most significant points to keep.

[flxlex]

There is some (considerable?) overlap between the bioinformatics forum at SeqAnswers, and biostar.stackexchange.com. Perhaps we should acknowledge that, and comment that SeqAnswer is targeting a wider audience than just those analyzing data using bioinformatic tools?

[dan]

However, I think we should separate the Forum from the Wiki for the letter, as the Wiki is getting published already, am I right?

Yup, the point of the letter is to focus on the forum, and hopefully publish before the wiki (coming out in January).

[dan]

I also think that SEQanswers is an incredibly useful knowledgebase all around NGS and its bioinformatics applications. I especially love its instantaneous character and the (usually) extremely short reaction times of experts and developers in the fields to all sorts of questions, ranging from biological questions to discussion/usage of various bioinformatic tools to bug reports or feature requests. For many questions I have and had in the past, SEQanswers has become my first port of call to look for solutions or help.

I think you speak for a lot of users. Please go ahead and write this in the letter if you agree :-D

[marcowanger]

I think wet lab protocols are better hosted at OpenWetWare.

Adding a section of small "example code snippets" to each software in the SEQwiki would be great. Should be added to wanted features in the SEQwiki.

I think it is better to mainly concentrate on the SEQanswer Forum in the letter.

Agree that openwetware works better for wet lab protocols. And in fact there are some software walkthrough in SEQwiki already. Snippet would be great

[andreas.sjodin]

I think wet lab protocols are better hosted at OpenWetWare.

Adding a section of small "example code snippets" to each software in the SEQwiki would be great. Should be added to wanted features in the SEQwiki.

I think it is better to mainly concentrate on the SEQanswer Forum in the letter.

[ulz_peter]

I think the future directions section is interesting. Just some ideas on what could be mentioned there:
1) The addition of a wet lab protocols wiki
2) As the size of the community increases, what are measures that can be implemented to keep the ratio of good information high to bad information? Perhaps the addition of energetic application specific moderators. This by the way it should be mentioned in the text that the ratio of good information to bad is really high on this forum.
3) Something else that might be cool is if there was some way to 'like/+1' threads and a section with the most popular threads. Might make browsing more efficient for causal readers.

I like the idea of the wetlab protocol wiki. That should be feasible with bioinformatic analysis guidelines as well (like the RNA Analysis manual).

So not only a list of available softwares (like the SeqWiki)but how to use them...

However, I think we should separate the Forum from the Wiki for the letter, as the Wiki is getting published already, am I right?

[ETHANol]

I think the future directions section is interesting. Just some ideas on what could be mentioned there:
1) The addition of a wet lab protocols wiki
2) As the size of the community increases, what are measures that can be implemented to keep the ratio of good information high to bad information? Perhaps the addition of energetic application specific moderators. This by the way it should be mentioned in the text that the ratio of good information to bad is really high on this forum.
3) Something else that might be cool is if there was some way to 'like/+1' threads and a section with the most popular threads. Might make browsing more efficient for causal readers.

[ulz_peter]

found in Science Homepage:

How to Submit a Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor are selected for publication that are pertinent to material published in Science or that discuss problems of general interest. Letters may be reviewed. Those selected for publication are intended to reflect the range of opinions received. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply.

Letters are not routinely acknowledged. Full addresses, signatures, and daytime phone numbers should be included. Letters should be brief (300 words or less) and may be edited for reasons of clarity or space. They may appear in print and/or on the World Wide Web. Letter writers are not consulted before publication.

[ulz_peter]

Any suggestions for the future directions part?