Galaxy Zoo Talk

Status and future of Letters, and other Zooniverse support for zooites' independent research?

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    I'm not sure if this is the best place for this thread, within GZT; would a Mod please move it if it's not?

    In getting clarification on something to do with the future of the Galaxy Zoo forum, in a Message there, I asked about the status and future of Letters, and other Zooniverse support for ordinary zooites' independent research. ZookeeperChris suggested the topic would be best discussed in Talk. Hence this thread, and question.

    I wrote:

    ... one reason why I (and I think at least one other zooite) [had] been using the OOTD Board in support of my research is that there's really no alternative within the Zooniverse. And work I've done and published in Letters (four to date) remains hidden. Yet the first Letter is now over two years' old.

    What concrete plans are there, within the Zooniverse, to provide support for ordinary zooites' own, independent research? If there are none (of the infrastructure kind), would you please say so? In addition, could you please consider writing some sort of guide or advice for ordinary zooites such as us? Thank you in advance.

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    I think this could be an interesting discussion about how various Zooniverse tools (including Tools!) work together, but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "support" -- could you clarify?

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to vrooje's comment.

    Thanks vrooje.

    but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "support" -- could you clarify?

    Well, I was primarily asking about the future of Letters, as a kind of support. Other forms offered so far* are Tools (as you note) and the Quench project (how research is done, by doing; now abandoned 😦).

    If I rephrase your question as "Let's ask the ordinary zooites doing independent research what sorts of things they'd like, in terms of support", then that's perhaps one of the most valuable kinds of support! πŸ˜ƒ

    I'll write up some of my own thoughts on an answer to that, and post it later.

    *beyond features useful to everyone, such as hashtags, collections, the 'View raw data in different wavelengths' tool, and Search

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator

    @JeanTate

    The term 'Support' can be used in several contexts, and in each context, the response / answer will be different. If you asked people in different industries as too what they defined as 'support', you would get different answers. In IT it would be a help desk to solve your IT problems, in social services it could be home support with the aid of a carer.

    You need to clarify what you are defining as 'support'?

    Is it a platform to publish your 'independent research' ? or do you are you looking for a platform so more people can contribute to your research?

    Finally, what are you expecting the end result to be?

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to Capella05's comment.

    Thanks Capella05.

    I should have been clearer; beyond asking about the future of Letters (which is, or was, explicitly created to support ordinary zooites' own research), I was asking a general question.

    My intention was to ask about what plans there were/are to provide support for ordinary zooites' own, independent research; in other words, 'support' was meant to mean whatever those in the Zooniverse thought (not what I had in mind). For example, within the Zooniverse there may be plans for a Quench2, or a revamp of Tools. Or there may be no specific plans to provide support for ordinary zooites' own, independent research. Because, for example, no one in the Zooniverse had considered that question before*.

    You need to clarify what you are defining as 'support'?

    I trust I have now done so.

    Is it a platform to publish your 'independent research' ? or do you are you looking for a platform so more people can contribute to your research?

    Finally, what are you expecting the end result to be?

    All very good questions! πŸ˜ƒ And as I indicated in my response to vrooje, I'll be writing up something concrete later.

    However, per my restatement of vrooje's question - Let's ask the ordinary zooites doing independent research what sorts of things they'd like, in terms of support - that's perhaps the most valuable kind of support of all. How, specifically, could that asking be done? Well, I intend to provide some concrete suggestions; stay tuned! πŸ˜„

    *of course this is clearly not true; Letters is a concrete counter-example!

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    Thanks, Jean. I completely agree with Capella that "support" can mean very different things in different contexts, and sometimes in the same context.

    I should note, though, that the restatement of the question is entirely your own. I was specifically asking what you would define as "support". Your restatement brings up another question about definitions that need to be clarified if the discussion is going to broaden:

    What do you mean by "ordinary zooites doing independent research"?

    I think you could break that statement down into two parts, one "ordinary zooites", of which by one definition there are more than a million, and which I think others might argue is extremely difficult to define because of the number and diversity of volunteers.

    Of the "doing independent research" definition, what counts? I think your situation clearly counts, but is that the only situation you mean? Are you talking about independent projects in educational settings? Does collaborative research count? Does the research have to be scientific or could it be social, or meta-analysis of the Zooniverse itself? What fraction of the volunteers do you think currently fits your definition?

    You are right that no matter what the definition the answer is unlikely to be that nobody in the Zooniverse has ever thought about it. πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    "support"? How about "help"? My questions then become:

    What concrete plans are there, within the Zooniverse, to help ordinary zooites' do their own, independent research? If there are no plans, to help such zooites in any way, would you please say so? In addition, could you please consider writing some sort of guide or advice for such ordinary zooites?

    Does that make it clearer?

    What do you mean by "ordinary zooites doing independent research"?

    Yes, that's a key question.

    I think both Meg and zkKevin described key aspects well*:

    [Meg] ... the Zooniverse is developing new tools for all the projects to further help promote and encourage science investigations from our volunteers. One new tool being built by the Zooniverse team is Letters which is still in beta and I've been slowly asking for people to contribute to. It's designed to be a supplement for Talk, where you can take the research you're doing or the guide you've started to assemble and have a place to write a long summary and description of it that you can't do with the Talk side discussions or message boards. If you have guides or a tool you developed or want to share your investigation (like the CVs, etc) please do write a letter [source]

    [zkKevin] We're beta testing a new Zooniverse feature called Letters which will let the Zooites write up their projects like a science paper. We're calling it Letters and we hope it's going to be essentially the journal for citizen scientists. [source]

    What Meg calls "volunteers" zkKevin calls "Zooites"; my phrase is "ordinary zooites". The key distinction is the lack of a formal academic or research institution affiliation; if you have access to papers behind a paywall, courtesy of your university library, or to IDL or even Mathematica 'for free' (to take just a couple of examples), you probably don't need much support or help to do your independent research.

    Are you talking about independent projects in educational settings?

    Like a high school science class using some Zooinverse data and Tools? Not really; I had assumed the Zooniverse Education Team would have that pretty well covered (though there certainly are overlaps and extensions).

    Does collaborative research count? Does the research have to be scientific or could it be social, or meta-analysis of the Zooniverse itself?

    Yes, and it could be any of those things.

    What fraction of the volunteers do you think currently fits your definition?

    I haven't a clue, nor any way to even begin making an estimate! Back in GZF days it might have been possible, with just one Zooniverse project and one platform; today?

    To turn one part of the general question into something concrete: what formal mini-projects have been undertaken, by the Zooniverse, to ascertain the kinds of help or support volunteers would like/need/etc in their independent science investigations? Specifically, what polling/surveys/feedback-forms/blog-posts-requesting-inputs/etc have been done/written?

    And as I indicated in my response to vrooje, I'll be writing up something concrete later.

    I had intended to get that done last night (my time); clearly my intentions outstripped my abilities 😦

    *they're talking about Letters, in 2012, but the general point is clear, I hope

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    Some examples* of "ordinary zooites doing independent research"; historical, in the Galaxy Zoo forum:

    From other astronomy Zooinverse projects, current/ongoing:

    From Letters, also historical (some may be on-going); sorry no links possible:

    • Introducing AKO
    • Blazars and their neighbors (though this was apparently done in an academic setting)
    • A Brief Overview of PyKE & Kepler Target Pixel Files
    • A Spatial SDSS Explorer
    • The Hyper-Velocity Star Project: Zooites Go Off On A Tangent With HVS
    • Blue Caterpillars'/BBOs - a separate class of irregulars?
    • Collaborative Gravitational Lens Modelling using SpaghettiLens

    Here in GZ Talk: Astrophysics for Galaxy Zoo Talk - redshift z PhotoZ spectra emissions AGN

    *none of which are 'mine' in the sense of me being the PI

    Posted

  • elizabeth_s by elizabeth_s

    πŸ˜ƒ A question here if I may some of the listed subjects you have listed in your post interest me. for example: NGC catalogue LIST the The Irregulars Project oh and the Identification list of all posted nebulae. Where can I find out what is happening with these projects? Thanks LIZ

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to elizabeth's comment.

    They are, or were, based on the Galaxy Zoo forum (GZF). As the GZF is now closed, the results are as displayed, as an archive. No further work on any of them is possible ...

    ... at least in the original form.

    Taking them one by one:

    • NGC catalogue LIST: this required some modifications to the forum platform, I think. It was very valuable, in that it extended and complemented a long-standing historical project into identification of all NGC objects. It may be possible to reproduce - and so continue (I don't think the zooites doing the project had tracked down every NGC object) - this in a new version of Talk; it would be impossible in the current version

    • Identification list of all posted nebulae: of the three, this would be the easiest to reproduce/extend here in GZT, though the effort involved in copying it over would likely be huge (perhaps not if you're good at coding and know the relevant languages well). Starting it here without copying - or at least providing links - wouldn't be much fun, I should think

    • The Irregulars Project: only waveney knows. The core of that project was a 'classification engine' he built himself, but lively GZF involvement was essential. I think I've seen mention of some sort of Zooniverse-based, stripped-down classification engine being made available (is already available?) as part of Education. However, without access to the (~9k?) SDSS 'irregulars', I can't see how this could be revived/recreated/extended.

    Hope this helps.

    Posted

  • elizabeth_s by elizabeth_s

    Thanks Jean. I know the projects just really wanted to know if there where any updates available. They are awesome projects imho. πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • mlpeck by mlpeck in response to JeanTate's comment.

    Since JeanTate linked some posts of mine over on quench talk as an example of an "ordinary zooite's" independent research I guess I should comment briefly.

    For the record and whatever it's worth I don't feel a need for support (in any commonly understood sense of the word) for my independent research from the zooniverse. I'm doing my independent research to satisfy my own curiosity only, and I have plenty of resources at hand. In the not too likely event that I ever get an irresistible urge to write something I would probably choose Authorea as a document platform over Zooniverse Letters even if the latter were an option, or just write my document locally using LaTeX.

    There is one bit of support I would like, namely an official statement about the status of the Quench project. The core GZ science team seems to have forgotten about it and the few citizen scientists who have stuck with it know nothing other than what has been posted in Quench Talk. If it has been abandoned an opportunity to discuss "lessons learned" might be useful.

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator in response to mlpeck's comment.

    Thanks for your input @mlpeck

    It is always appreciated. I can't give you a answer with regards to the Quench project, but I do know the scientists involved do read GZ Talk, and will answer your question. If necessary I will point them to your post πŸ˜ƒ

    As for the topic of the thread - I was going to reply to this thread earlier, but got distracted due to ZooCon and injury.

    'Letters' is still under discussion, it is not under development, and it looks like it will be a while before a new version (if at all) gets delivered.

    Disapointing - yes, but with the expansion of the Zooniverse, and having to take the needs of every project into account, I can imagine it is really difficult to write a program that suits everyone.

    As for a repository for your research, I would recommend:

    • GitHub - although it says it is for software, we use it for collaborating on one of the spacewarps letters
    • To write it up, LaTex is the way to go. Also used by professional astronomers, and very easy to learn. Templates are available.

    There are so many good third party products out there, I will not wait on the Zooniverse to provide one for your needs.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to vrooje's comment.

    What fraction of the volunteers do you think currently fits your definition?

    Your question, vrooje, has been bouncing around in my head for days now.

    In that time, I spent a very happy hour or so re-reading some of the early threads (etc) in the GZ forum, and was - again - struck by the enthusiasm, curiosity, and vibrancy of what the early (now 'oldbie') zooites wrote, what ideas they decided to explore, what investigations they began. Perhaps calling all, or even most, of these 'independent research' would be a stretch; however, I found the contrast with today's GZ Talk stark indeed ... to me, reading one then the other, I found essentially no newbies here, no curiosity (beyond getting a good answer to "what's this?"), no collegiality (beyond social networking), ... not even any "RandyC's". Yet in the interim the number of active zooites has increased markedly (so Grant and his Daily Zooniverse keeps saying), and not just because there are more Zooniverse projects.

    Yes, the highly successful SpaceWarps project was created - in some way - from the terrific success of all the zooites who posted to the Possible strong gravitational lenses thread, but what similar threads has zkKevin (or, today, SCIENTIST*) created here?

    Yes, both the Active galaxies with ionized gas clouds - more denizens of the Zoo and the Wanted! Galaxy pairs which overlap but are not merging threads led to papers, but surely NGC3314 cannot possibly think neither search is worth continuing? And even if he does, aren't any of the zooites who hang out here curious enough to continue collecting and discussing candidates?

    It's true that GZ Talk is incredibly buggy and some of its key features quite unreliable (e.g. hashtags)**, but is that enough to explain why there seems to be so little interest in independent inquiry here (to say nothing of independent research)?

    In short, I am quite puzzled as to why there seems to have been such a dramatic drop in apparent enthusiasm for independent inquiry, between the early days of the GZ forum and today's GZ Talk.

    *that's a title, not shouting

    **these are important reasons why I myself no longer do any independent investigations here

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to vrooje's comment.

    but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "support" -- could you clarify?

    I've had a couple of goes at answering, in a general sense. The most important thing I want to convey is that I, JeanTate, do not know ... it's for the LankyYankee, egalaxy, LizPeter, waveney, Lovethetropics, gumbosea, troyw, Yinchaun Yu, nighthawk_black, laihro, PeterD, Capella05 et al., Dolorous Edd, mlpeck*, ... to say.

    Myself, I would like to learn - by doing - how to write a paper, in collaboration with other zooites (be they professionals or 'ordinary zooites'), and how to get it published in the likes of AJ or MNRAS. This is one reason I was so enthusiastic about Quench, and so disappointed that it appears to have been abandoned. A few years' ago there are many other things I would have said I'd have liked help on/support for; in the interim I've found ways to at least address most of them, some with the help of fellow zooites (again, both professional and 'ordinary'). I still think it'd be cool beyond cool if the Zooniverse were to create a packaged 'classification engine' - much like what waveney made, on his own - that did not require deep knowledge of CSS etc. Together with support for zooites who propose projects using such an engine for cool scientific research.

    *thank you for your input! πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to Capella05's comment.

    Thanks Capella05.

    In the last few days' I've been searching for anything official - from a Zooniverse perspective - on this. In the public domain. I found nothing, zip, a big egg, ... beyond what Meg and zkKevin wrote about Letters, and what's on the Quench website (main page, and posts by the PI, Laura)*. Yes, there are second-hand hints, private communications, enigmatic tweets, ... but nothing concrete or official.

    Taking Chris Lintott at his word^, perhaps the most rational interpretation of the silence is that, in fact, there are no concrete plans whatsoever*; if you assume a breach of ethics, many other rational interpretations are possible, of course, including that Adam's insight was much closer to the reality.

    *big caveat: ZooTools and Zoo Education

    ^"An β€˜ethics’ of Citizen Science [...] 2. Treat participants as collaborators not as subjects" (one source; there are many more by him, and many with other Zooinverse principals as authors)

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist in response to JeanTate's comment.

    JeanTate wrote:

    In short, I am quite puzzled as to why there seems to have been such a
    dramatic drop in apparent enthusiasm for independent inquiry, between
    the early days of the GZ forum and today's GZ Talk.

    I am not sure I agree with that. There are people here finding new NEOs and supernovae, and as you've said some of the important collections from the forum have been continued over here. There are new people starting to delve deeper into astronomy too.

    Talk has a much higher percentage of posts from first-time volunteers than the forum did, and that's a good thing. That means the hardcore users aren't the only voices, but it doesn't mean they don't have a voice or are no longer participating. Some of the first users may have moved on to other things, but that doesn't mean GZ won't spark an interest in others.

    Posted

  • Rick_N. by Rick_N. in response to JeanTate's comment.

    I don't agree with 'Adam's insight'. He seems to write contradictory statements in the same article and then aplogises in the reply section because they were "half-formed thoughts hastily scribbled down in a tea shop". He writes: "I’ve had a go at a number of the different projects and they were entertaining for about five minutes". Were they ever meant to be entertaining anyway? If he wants to be entertained, then he should go to the movies or see a show. A poor article.

    As for GZ letters, setting up an organisation to oversee and perhaps publish whatever works were presented always seemed a bit of a non-starter anyway. From my own experience, even getting a paper together using LATEX was a challenge. For the Science team, it seemed a lot of effort for not much return.

    Posted

  • klmasters by klmasters scientist, admin

    Jean - there is already a mechanism for learning how to write a scientific paper and get it published - it's called going to graduate school (ie. getting a PhD)….. If that seems like a lot of training - well that's because honestly there is a lot that goes into writing scientific papers.

    I'm not trying to shut down the discussion here, this is an honest question - have you ever considered looking into formal scientific training? A lot of the comments you make reveal a lot of good insight. You often seem to grumble that we don't have enough time to give you - well honestly that's because we don't. Most of the scientists on here are effectively volunteering time too (I could be preparing for a talk I'm giving later today, or working on my own papers, but instead I'm typing this…). If you could find a way to sign up for graduate school you would have an advisor who would be responsible for helping you….

    I read the "Adam's insight' article. Unusually for there internet there's some good comments which follow what seems more like a rant from Adam about shallow engagement in the Zooniverse than any well formed opinions (he even admits that in a response to one of them). I particularly like Suw Charman-Anderson's comments about the typical 1-9-90 rule and how it applies to Zooniverse projects. I think there are a lot of wonderful examples of deeper engagement which could never have happened without the Zooniverse. That doesn't mean that every interaction with it is deep, but I think that's OK.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to klmasters's comment.

    Thanks Karen.

    there is already a mechanism for learning how to write a scientific paper and get it published - it's called going to graduate school (ie. getting a PhD)….. If that seems like a lot of training - well that's because honestly there is a lot that goes into writing scientific papers.

    That's certainly true.

    But it's also clearly not the only way.

    For example, at least three ordinary zooites learned - by doing - how to write a GZ-related paper, in collaboration with professional astronomers (source). As did several Planet Hunter ordinary zooites, at least once (source). And when the first SpaceWarps paper is published, ordinary zooite members of the Science Team - Budgieye, Capella05, c_cld, ElisabethB, gumbosea, ThomasJ* - will also have learned, by doing, how to write a paper in collaboration with professional astronomers. And that's just from a few astronomy-related Zooniverse projects.

    The Quench Project explicitly aimed at doing exactly what I am keen to learn; Stage 3 is "Writing the Professional Journal Article". While it's not abandoned (as I earlier stated; good news!), it won't resume until at least ~the end of September.

    have you ever considered looking into formal scientific training? A lot of the comments you make reveal a lot of good insight. [...] If you could find a way to sign up for graduate school you would have an advisor who would be responsible for helping you….

    Thank you, and yes, I did. More than once. Unfortunately, my personal circumstances pretty much preclude that option, even if I could find a graduate school that would be willing to consider my application (which I very much doubt). And that's before any consideration of the financial cost.

    (more later)

    *I think this list may not be 100% accurate

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator

    And when the first SpaceWarps paper is published, ordinary zooite members of the Science Team - Budgieye, Capella05, c_cld, ElisabethB, gumbosea, ThomasJ* - will also have learned, by doing, how to write a paper in collaboration with professional astronomers. And that's just from a few astronomy-related Zooniverse projects.

    Just FYI - ThomasJ and Gumbosea were not involved in the SW 'Modelling Paper'.

    Posted

  • Peter_Dzwig by Peter_Dzwig

    As one of those to whom Jean is referring I think I ought to comment.

    I was, and am still, conducting "private" research on BBOs/caterpillars - with the help of other zooites - though since the demise of GZH - and latterly of the Forum - this has largely been a solo effort with some support from Chris and Kevin on occasion concerning cosmological aspects.

    I should also add that I wrote three Letters, one of which appeared under Letters; a second of which was submitted and may or may not have made the cut-off; a third which was prepared afterwards when it was possible that Letters wouldn't entirely disappear and a fourth exists as a summary and analyis of the data obtained in the others.

    Several people with whom I have discussed what happens next seem to be looking for an overall level of support. "Tools" (whether with a capital or lower-case "t") is just one aspect, "Letters" is possibly another. There are two others: communication and development.

    I also get an overall sense that people want to ask questions and get answers. Often people (science team and others) are assigned to, or agree to answer, specific questions and then nothing happens, or conversations simply fade away without rhyme or reason. We all understand that there are many competing calls on people's time, but...

    With regard to a successor to Letters I had thought to set up a pdf only site to allow the presentation of Letters for discussion on sub-boards on Talk. I have never understood what the big issue with Letters is/was. As a sort of Letters-lite it would have more restrictions on what could be posted than with Letters (no embedded code etc. but this is no different from a real paper). Obviously all papers would have to be approved and be part of a serious thread. I would be very happy to help, but it needs to be done as a part of GZ and access would only be available to the "approved" Zooites, science team etc.

    As a former academic and dedicated Zooite I think that one of the most intriguing aspects of the whole Zooniverse project is how we develop and exploit the talents of those "serious" zooites who want to make a lasting contribution.

    This where the Zoo differs from normal crowd-sourcing and I suspect that this has come as a bit of a surprise. What was originally intended as a way of cutting the amount of time needed to complete classification of a slew of data has had unforseen but valuable side-effects.

    We (the Zoo) have gone through a three-stage process. Stage 1 was getting people to look at the SDSS, Hubble and other data and get interested in classifying and wonder at the Universe (this was the original aim); Stage 2 was the Forums, discussion groups and so on that lead to the study of various classes of objects and resulted in us finding Green Peas, Hanny's Verwoopje, Red Spirals and a lot more in other areas; one result is that we have a group of individuals who have become "serious" about working on the data available. How we exploit that to best advantage is Stage 3. Of course Stages 1 and 2 continue to run in parallel.

    Talking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, a few weeks ago, Chris said that he recognised that there was a need to develop the way in which the Zooniverse works with these guys. Getting "support" working is perhaps Stage 3a.

    Because GZ is beyond the majority of other projects in terms of its development it has thrown up these issues first. Others will get there in time. We are embarking on something new: this isn't CPD, it isn't like doing evening courses in cosmology (we've already done whole nights more like!); it's an entire new game that GZ has thrown up. The current serious zooites and those who follow after can make a contribution of a more detailed nature in their chosen areas and can add value to research activities without adding cost!

    How should this be taken forward? Well, I have some ideas which I am more than happy to discuss but I should probably stop before this gets too long and give others a chance to chime in.

    Comments? Thoughts?

    Peter

    Posted

  • Rick_N. by Rick_N.

    How many people might take part, where's the funding and who does the day-to-day stuff would seem like critical issues.

    I tried writing a GZ Letter using data that c_cld and myself had collected about GPs: my science wasn't up to it and Claude's first language is French. The data became out-of-date quickly anyway. So myself, I would be reticent about putting any new studies forward. However, several Zooites seem concerned that there should be something. But would Letters be for a few people or tens of people? Why have Letters when there are a multitude of other routes for publication?

    Proper papers are peer-reviewed, whereas Letters sometimes are or aren't. Who is going to review GZ papers? If they're good enough to be published by GZ, can they be published by a larger organisation? Something like 'GZ for MNRAS'. A GZ backdoor to a larger world.

    Funding and time spent seem to be the deciders. I wish you luck, but feel that a seperate organisation would be difficult to implement. The idea of GZ-recommended Letters to established publications could work perhaps?

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    So, there are a handful of 'serious' zooites? What does that make the rest of us ? Sorry, I find that a very condescending term.

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator

    Hi all - I am moving this discussion into the 'Citizen Science' thread, as it has less to do with GZ 'tech' support than debating a publishing platform for Zooniverse volunteers.

    So as not to confuse things, I will make a separate post with my personal views.

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator

    The views below are my own, I would appreciate it if you would respect that πŸ˜ƒ

    As one of the Zooites who has spent a lot of time and effort of writing and 'publishing' * a Letter I have been following the last few posts with interest.

    Several valid points have been raised, and I think it comes back to the question of what we were actually expecting to achieve with publishing our research on 'Letters'? Were we only expecting a platform to publish our research to fellow Zooites? or were we expecting it to be a stepping stone to a wider audience? or were we just using it as a venue to 'copyright' our ideas? (sorry didn't know the right words for the last one).

    For myself, it is the first. I had no ulterior motives.

    Even within the Zooniverse, there is so much diversity between the projects, that a 'Letter' on gravitational lens modelling is hardly going to strike a chord with a volunteer on 'Bat Detective'. Even if 'Letters' was redeveloped and released - I do not not think we will find a very wide audience for our work 😦

    Sad, but apart for the people involved in writing them - there has not been much interest from the wider community.

    As Rick pointed there were several shortcomings - no peer review, all letters were 'accepted' for publication, without corrections having to be made. Just this alone could put the Zooniverse in a very difficult position if content was lifted from uncredited sources. I (and my co-authors) were fortunate with the interest of the PI's at SW, so it was reviewed several times before publication - other PI's may not have the time to do this.

    '* it might of been published, but due to the bugs in letters, probably not widely read.

    Posted

  • Rick_N. by Rick_N.

    So we can assume that GZ Letters isn't going to happen, because of all the reasons stated in this discussion? A general lack of interest outside of a few zooites concerned with publishing their own works? Credibility through association rather than the numerous online sites in which any papers or letters can be published? Hard to see it happening really, though I might well be proved wrong.

    Posted

  • Peter_Dzwig by Peter_Dzwig

    I replied to ElisabethB earlier apologising for my use of the phrase "serious zooites" which she found condescending.

    As I said to her, I apologise unreservedly to any and all if this caused offence. I was merely using a term which had been used many times elsewhere as a shorthand.

    Peter

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator in response to Rick N.'s comment.

    I do not know, or have the answer to that Rick. Like I said that was just my personal musings πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator in response to Rick N.'s comment.

    A general lack of interest outside of a few zooites concerned with publishing their own works?

    Another possibility is that due to Letters only being a beta release and not available for public consumption - there was no reason to publicize it, or our Letters.

    That would also account for lack of interest from the wider Zooniverse community.

    Posted

  • Peter_Dzwig by Peter_Dzwig

    Capella,

    "Several valid points have been raised, and I think it comes back to the question of what we were actually expecting to achieve with publishing our research on 'Letters'? Were we only expecting a platform to publish our research to fellow Zooites? or were we expecting it to be a stepping stone to a wider audience? or were we just using it as a venue to 'copyright' our ideas? ....."

    I personally think that most of us thought the first two in some shape or form though as a precursor to doing something further (like for example refining with a view to publication, or starting a new project or similar). If you like, more as a forum in which to discuss our own analysis. I thought that the original idea was that there would be reviews by the science team and the ZKs and discussion would ensue. BUt that does mean that there would have been a limited degree of peer-review, at least as far as I understand.

    I don't know what the issues were. From a professional point if view I would be rather interested to know what the team saw as the issues which canned it. I still stand by my belief that by building on the current tools that we have it ought to be easy to trial something.

    With regard to "copyrighting" ideas I raised that discussion elsewhere sometime ago and the consensus seemed to be (in respect of our personal analysis) that no-one new what the situation would be.

    Peter

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator in response to Peter Dzwig's comment.

    From a professional point if view I would be rather interested to know what the team saw as the issues which canned it

    It is not necessarily canned (at least I haven't heard anything!) - it has just that the original estimate for developing a new version has elapsed, and it is still under discussion. True, it could mean that there serious shortcomings, or it could mean that the dev team are too busy building other projects or applications.

    I do not know πŸ˜ƒ

    I am not going to put words in the Zookeepers mouths, and answer for them πŸ˜ƒ

    As I previously said, these comments / observations are made in my personal capacity.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    What is the status of Letters? What concrete plans are there for its future?

    I've been offline for a couple of days+ and am in catch-up mode (good to read the posts of the last few days); however, I don't think either of these questions has been answered yet, certainly not in any official way.

    Concerning the second question - about concrete plans for the future - perhaps it's pertinent to also ask about concrete plans which are explicitly intended to meet the objectives described by Meg and zkKevin over two years' ago now:

    [Meg] ... the Zooniverse is developing new tools for all the projects to further help promote and encourage science investigations from our volunteers. One new tool being built by the Zooniverse team is Letters which is still in beta and I've been slowly asking for people to contribute to. It's designed to be a supplement for Talk, where you can take the research you're doing or the guide you've started to assemble and have a place to write a long summary and description of it that you can't do with the Talk side discussions or message boards. If you have guides or a tool you developed or want to share your investigation (like the CVs, etc) please do write a letter [source]

    [zkKevin] We're beta testing a new Zooniverse feature called Letters which will let the Zooites write up their projects like a science paper. We're calling it Letters and we hope it's going to be essentially the journal for citizen scientists. [source]

    To be clear: I am not asking for opinions etc, whether you think goals like these are worthy/way too ambitious/irrelevant/etc; nor what private conversations you may have had, or what conclusions you reached by inference from various sources. Etc.

    If the status of Letters is 'in limbo' or 'abandoned' or similar, so be it; a clear statement like this is, IMO, far better than silence.

    If there are no concrete plans for Letters' future - whether narrowly (i.e. Letters as the very limited HTML-based document template, etc), or broadly (i.e. that aims to achieve what Meg and zkKevin describe) - then let's have that stated, publicly and without ambiguity.

    Posted

  • Peter_Dzwig by Peter_Dzwig

    Capella,

    I think it is lack of resources rather than anything else. Hence why I mooted a Lite version, but in order to proceed with it, it would be interesting to understand what the technical issues were, if any.

    Peter

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to klmasters's comment.

    If I come across as grumbling, that's not my intention; rather I am trying to understand - in detail - what the concrete Zooniverse plans are for Letters (or similar). And I am seeking to put those concrete plans - and the more general intentions - into the context of the Zooniverse, its publicly stated goals, ethical principles, and so on.

    You often seem to grumble that we don't have enough time to give you - well honestly that's because we don't. Most of the scientists on here are effectively volunteering time too

    Perhaps a specific - counter - example might help.

    POGS is a BOINC-based astronomy project ; you volunteer your computers' cycles, the astronomers get a 'free' PFLOPS virtual computer; you can earn 'prizes' and 'trophies; the astronomers can publish papers and hire grad students. Etc. There are no commitments from the POGS team; no free access to papers they publish using the results of your computers' cycles, no access to the data you helped produce, your science questions may (or may not) be answered, and so on. In particular, there's nothing about treating you as a colleague/collaborator and not a subject, nothing about not wasting your time, etc. Certainly no "Letters"-like initiative, not the slightest hint of an intent to "further help promote and encourage science investigations from our volunteers".

    I'm sure you'd agree that the contrast with the Zooniverse - and Galaxy Zoo in particular - is pretty stark.

    Bringing this back to the β€˜ethics’ of Citizen Science: with respect to the specific case of Letters, what does "Treat participants as collaborators not as subjects" mean?

    (this is part of the 'more later')

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to Rick N.'s comment.

    You may be right, RickN; you may be quite wrong.

    As for GZ letters, setting up an organisation to oversee and perhaps publish whatever works were presented always seemed a bit of a non-starter anyway. From my own experience, even getting a paper together using LATEX was a challenge. For the Science team, it seemed a lot of effort for not much return.

    Isn't this rather beside the point?

    I mean, Meg and zkKevin certainly didn't act alone when they wrote " the Zooniverse is developing new tools for all the projects to further help promote and encourage science investigations from our volunteers" and "We're beta testing a new Zooniverse feature called Letters which will let the Zooites write up their projects like a science paper." It may well be that the new Zooniverse feature called Letters turned out to be far more challenging than anyone imagined; it may well be that someone decided that the team's limited resources - including the voluntary time of scientists like Karen - would be better spent on something other than Letters. And so on.

    Is it verboten to ask what the current status of Letters is, in concrete terms, and what concrete plans there are (narrowly, for Letters, or more broadly for a feature which is aimed at realizing the goals stated by Meg and zkKevin)?

    Is it unreasonable to expect a clear, unambigous answer?

    After more than two years.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to JeanTate's comment.

    And congratulations to Galaxy Zoo volunteer, Kian J. Jek, who is now a co-author of Galaxy Zoo: CANDELS Barred Disks and Bar Fractions (arXiv:1409.1214v1)! πŸ˜ƒ

    As far as I know, Kian is the first ordinary zooite to be a co-author of papers from more than one Zooniverse project (assuming he's the same person); he is co-author of ~six Planet Hunters papers.

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    Did they inform about the status/future of Letters at the Zoocon Portsmouth?
    In the below new paper there is given information about Quench, but information about Letters is missing!

    Ideas for Citizen Science in Astronomy
    Philip J. Marshall, Chris J. Lintott, Leigh N. Fletcher
    (Submitted on 15 Sep 2014)
    Comments: In progress. The most up to date PDF file should be downloaded from this http URL . We invite feedback via github issues at this http URL, and aim to submit to ARAA on September 26
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4291

    Besides there is given following statement.:

    A pilot collaborative modeling analysis was carried out and written up by a small group of Space Warps volunteers
    30 (Capella05 2014).

    In the Reference list/ the above statement there is a mistake.: The below ref. number is different than in the statement! :
    10. Capella05. 2014. Zooniverse Letters

    Posted

  • mlpeck by mlpeck in response to zutopian's comment.

    In the below new paper there is given information about Quench

    I'd say the "information" about Quench isn't especially accurate. At the time it went on hiatus there were 3 active "citizen scientist" participants by my count. There might have been as many as 10 involved early in the analysis phase but most of them faded away over time. As far as I know there were never thousands participating in Quench Talk, not even during the classification stage. And also as far as I know there is no scientific paper underway yet. There was a paper presented by Trouille at an AAS meeting in Chicago this August, but that was about the project more than it was results from the project and (again, AFAIK) no citizen scientist directly participated in its preparation.

    Finally, we had largely abandoned "Tools" (referred to as "dashboard" in Marshall+) as a data sharing and analysis tool well before the project went on hiatus. Even the last data updates from the science team were shared via a dropbox account.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to zutopian's comment.

    Thanks zutopian! πŸ˜ƒ

    I started a thread specifically on this preprint, Thread to discuss "Ideas for Citizen Science in Astronomy" (Marshall+ 2014)

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to zutopian's comment.

    Having now read the preprint carefully, the lack of any response - here, about the status and future of Letters - is, um, curious*.

    It would seem that something like Letters is exactly what the Zooniverse team would be enthusiastic about developing, supporting, and promoting! As evidenced by:

    • "Moreover, we might expect outsiders to ask some unusual questions, and make connections and suggestions that highly
      focused professionals may not have thought of.      " (p37, 2nd para of the Intro section of Section 5, CITIZEN-LED ENQUIRY)

    • "The citizen astronomers are passionate about the subject, and are encouragingly motivated by being of service to science. We must recognize that a critical feature of "citizen science" is the enabling of amateurs to make authentic contributions to the research topic in question: this in turn should drive us to seek out those tasks that cannot be done by other means." (p55, 2nd para of Section 8, CONCLUDING REMARKS)

    • "Indeed, the most dedicated volunteers have proved capable of developing and using fairly advanced astronomical techniques, suggesting that we are likely to
      continue to see increasing numbers of citizens co-authoring papers in high impact research journals. While not everyone who takes part in a project wants to move to more advanced work, providing the opportunity to do so is important.      " (also p55)

    *In addition to the irony of citing a Zooniverse Letter, in the body of the paper, all-but-explicitly implying that it's part of "the astronomical literature" (as zutopian has already noted)

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian in response to JeanTate's comment.

    Having now read the preprint carefully, the lack of any response - here, about the status and future of Letters - is, um, curious*.

    It would seem that something like Letters is exactly what the Zooniverse team would be enthusiastic about developing, supporting, and promoting! As evidenced by:
    (...)

    I also think, that it is curious, especially because of the statements in Section 5, CITIZEN-LED ENQUIRY. I would like to cite following ones.:

    • In principle, this is an area of great potential.

    • Citizen scientists are largely free of these managerial and budgetary constraints, and are able to devote their attentions to whatever topics interest them.

    Well, I think, that those statements are somehow different than the following statement by klmasters in this discussion.:

    Jean - there is already a mechanism for learning how to write a scientific paper and get it published - it's called going to graduate school (ie. getting a PhD)….. If that seems like a lot of training - well that's because honestly there is a lot that goes into writing scientific papers. (...)

    Here is another statement in Section 5, CITIZEN-LED ENQUIRY.:

    • What are some enquiries that citizens have led in astronomy to date, and how have they been enabled and supported?

    Then Saturn Storm Watch, The Galaxy Zoo Forum: Voorwerp/voorwerpje and Green Peas discoveries, Lightcurve analysis on Planet Hunters talk and Galaxy Zoo: Quench are presented.

    Some volunteers had written letters, but curiously Letters isn't mentioned in the paper and there is still no feedback concerning the status/future of Letters! I would like to remind of the following question by Jean.:

    What concrete plans are there, within the Zooniverse, to provide support for ordinary zooites' own, independent research?

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    "Citizen-guided projects and citizen-lead papers" is very interesting feedback on the Marshall+ 2014 paper, by tom6740 (in GitHub, here):

    Very interesting paper, thank you!

    I just would like to highlight a small subset of the citizen astronomer population but probably worth to mention: citizen-guided projects and citizen-lead papers. I know the authors have a dedicated section on citizen-lead enquiries (p. 37 on the Sep 15 version), but to my understanding it is still more about professional-guided projects.

    Perhaps I can start with myself as an example. Before entering an astronomy grad program, I was doing my undergrad in another area, but I realized doing astronomy and research was fun (I have been a long time amateur astronomer myself). So with some helps and hints from professionals, I initiated my own small project, got some time on a telescope, wrote a paper, and it eventually made its way to AJ. (later the paper probably help me into the grad program, but that's another story.) I know a few others who are also citizen astronomers by their own and have led papers on journals like MNRAS, sometimes as a solo author (e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1564H http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.3712L).

    I am a grad student right now, but I still spend times on non-thesis projects that caught my interests. I am not sure if I can still be counted as citizen astronomer though... but I still hang out with my amateur friends, collaborate on projects, and encourage them to initiate projects and write papers if they have interests.

    The two examples tom6740 gives are:

    Observations of Comet P/2003 T12 = 2012 A3 (SOHO) at large phase angle in STEREO-B, by M.T. Hui (Guangzhou, China):

    Comet P/2003 T12 = 2012 A3 (SOHO) was observed by the satellite STEREO-B during the period 2012 January 13-27. During its apparition, it ventured into the highest phase angle ever observed for a comet, and the forward-scattering enhancement in brightness was marked, as large as ˜8.5 mag. Therefore, it provided a precious opportunity to examine the compound Henyey-Greenstein (HG) comet-dust light-scattering model and it also offered valuable polarization data under an unprecedented observing geometry. Our analysis reveals that the compound HG model fits the observations very well until the phase angle exceeds ˜173°, where the brightness surge of the comet was obviously steeper than the prediction by the model. We have found that the reason for the greater steepness cannot be explained by contaminations from the proximal tail. Instead, the model of Mie spheres with radii greater than 1 μm, having a power-law distribution of power index ˜3, matches the observation very well, providing a best-fitting complex refractive index μ = 1.38 + i 0.006. The dust size was found to be consistent with the analysis of the comet's syndyne lines. The debiased polarization of the coma was ˜0 per cent in the phase angle range from 172.9° to 177.6°. . No convincing evidence of temporal variation of the polarization was detected.

    And Testing the rotating lighthouse model with the double pulsar system PSR J0737-3039A/B, by Zhuxing Liang (Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China), Yi Liang (Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China), and Joel M. Weisberg (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Carleton College, Northfield, MN, USA):

    Each of the two pulsars in the double pulsar PSR J0737-3039A/B system exhibits not only the pulses emanating from it, but also displays modulations near the pulse period of the other. Freire et al. (2009, MNRAS, 396, 1764) have put forward a technique using the modulation of B by A to determine the sense of rotation of pulsar A relative to its orbital motion, among other quantities. In this paper, we present another technique with the same purpose. While the Freire et al. approach analyses pulse arrival times, ours instead uses periods or frequencies (their inverses), which can be experimentally determined via power spectral analysis similar to that used in pulsar searches. Our technique is based on the apparent change in spin period of a body when it is measured from an orbiting platform (the other pulsar), and is shown to be entirely analogous to the difference between the sidereal and solar spin period of the Earth (i.e. the sidereal and solar day). Two benefits of this approach are its conceptual and computational simplicity. The direct detection of spin with this technique will observationally validate the rotating lighthouse model of pulsar emission, while the detection of the relative directions of spin and orbital angular momenta has important evolutionary implications. Our technique can be used on other binary systems exhibiting mutually induced phenomena.

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator in response to JeanTate's comment.

    Hi JeanTate,

    I am just wondering if you have permission to reprint that feedback from tom6740? It was submitted to a specific users GitHub account, and I am not aware if the user intended it to get reprinted on other forums.

    Thanks.

    Posted

  • Rick_N. by Rick_N.

    "I would like to remind of the following question by Jean: What concrete plans are there, within the Zooniverse, to provide support for ordinary zooites' own, independent research?"

    Concrete plans for GZ Letters? Very few, if any would be my guess. That being the case, please get over it and move on. There are plenty of other ways of publishing letters, papers or other academic studies on the web. Why be so fixated with GZ Letters anyway? Is this thread about supporting potential citizen scientists now and in the future, or about Jean getting her letters published? Altruism or egoism?

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    Concrete plans for GZ Letters? Very few, if any would be my guess. That being the case, please get over it and move on.

    Actually, I guessed, that they had decided to abandon the Letters project, but after reading the new paper I was puzzled!:
    On one hand there is no feedback concerning Letters and klmasters adviced, that one should study astronomy in order to publish papers, but on the other hand they praise the potential of citizen-led enquiry in the new paper! Reality and some statements in the paper somehow contradict/ don't match in my opinion! There is indeed potential as proven by the fact, that some volunteers had written letters, but curiously there is no feedback and no support!
    I would like to know, if Letters was abandoned and if so, what the reason is and how they intend to support the independent research of volunteers in the future instead!

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator

    but on the other hand they praise the potential of citizen-led enquiry in the new paper! Reality and some statements in the paper somehow contradict/don't match in my opinion!

    Firstly, a distinction needs to be made. The paper that you are referring to relates to "Ideas for Citizen Science in Astronomy", although the Zooniverse is referenced, it is trying to encompass the wider contributions within this field. Phil has voiced his opinion on what support he would like to see for citizen scientists, but it is not necessarily up to the Zooniverse to provide it.

    As Rick mentioned, there are other ways to publish your research (as I have mentioned previously in this thread).

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian in response to Capella05's comment.

    Firstly, a distinction needs to be made. The paper that you are referring to relates to "Ideas for Citizen Science in Astronomy", although the Zooniverse is referenced, it is trying to encompass the wider contributions within this field. Phil has voiced his opinion on what support he would like to see for citizen scientists, but it is not necessarily up to the Zooniverse to provide it.

    Well, In the Conclusions section of the paper there is given following statement.:

    While not everyone who takes part in a project wants to move to more advanced work, providing the opportunity to do so is important.

    I guess, that they also mean the Zooniverse! If so, how are they going to provide the opportunity in the future?

    Posted

  • Capella05 by Capella05 moderator in response to zutopian's comment.

    I think that is the whole point of the paper πŸ˜ƒ

    There is a symposium next year to discuss citizen science, perhaps this has something to do with it? I do not know for sure, but it will be exciting if it did!

    Echoing Rick - perhaps we should all move on and not speculate on things we do not know? No point getting worked up about nothing.

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to Capella05's comment.

    Hi Capella05,

    Hmm ... I wasn't aware any such permission was needed. And, having checked both GitHub and GZ Talk, I can't see even the obliquest of hints either site requires/suggests/recommends/etc getting it.

    Be that as it may, which of the following would you suggest is more preferable ("X" stands for a block of text which, loosely, would include the astro-ph URLs, paper titles, and abstracts):

    I came across a very interesting comment, earlier today, about citizen scientists - without academic affiliation - having published papers based on their independent astronomy research in MNRAS. I had been unaware that this had happened, and quite recently too. X

    Oh, and what do you think about adding "(source)", where the word is a live link, to the GitHub Issue? You know I'm a real stickler for proper attribution.

    "citizen-lead papers" - papers written by citizen scientists with no academic affiliation, published in peer-reviewed astronomy journals such as MNRAS - do they exist? Yes they do! X (I learned of this from reading feedback to Marshall+ 2014). So there's yet another path for an ordinary zooite to become a (co-)author of paper published in the likes of MNRAS. Does any reader of this post know of other recent examples (say, last ten years)?

    (I'll consider editing my post, above, in light of your advice! πŸ˜ƒ)

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to Rick N.'s comment.

    Concrete plans for GZ Letters? Very few, if any would be my guess.

    Mine too.

    That being the case, please get over it and move on.

    Thank you for your advice.

    Why be so fixated with GZ Letters anyway?

    The longer there's no official response, the more curious I am. Doubly so, seeing as Marshall+ (2014) includes "Capella 05. 2014. Zooniverse Letters" as a reference.

    Is this thread about supporting potential citizen scientists now and in the future, or about Jean getting her letters published?

    I cannot read your mind; speaking personally, the former.

    Altruism or egoism?

    False dichotomy?

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to Capella05's comment.

    There is a symposium next year to discuss citizen science, perhaps this has something to do with it? I do not know for sure, but it will be exciting if it did!

    That may perhaps be so; however, the specific objective, as stated in the Comments on the astro-ph abstract page, is "and aim to submit to ARAA on September 26". My guess is that ARAA is Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, a journal. "Ideas for Citizen Science in Astronomy" is listed in the Forthcoming section, specifically "Vol. 53 (Volume publication date September 2015)" (here).

    Echoing Rick - perhaps we should all move on and not speculate on things we do not know? No point getting worked up about nothing.

    Echoing my reply to him, thank you for your advice.

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian in response to Capella05's comment.

    There is a symposium next year to discuss citizen science, perhaps this has something to do with it? I do not know for sure, but it will be exciting if it did!

    Yes, I know. It was announced in the blog and there is a related Talk topic.
    BTW, there was a meeting this year, namely the (internal) "Annual Zooniverse Meeting", which took place in Chicago four months ago, as you know. Curiously, there is still no information available about the things, which were discussed besides Quench and Talk! Or did they inform at the Zoocon about the discussions at the Chicago meeting?

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    Info: Previous posts in this discussions are dated July-Sept 2014!

    Moderator Capella05 did following statement 17 days ago in another discussion.:

    Rick, there was no funding / grants available to continue developing it. (...)

    http://talk.galaxyzoo.org/#/boards/BGZ0000007/discussions/DGZ0001u6f

    Suggestion: Could the Zooniverse start a crowdfunding campaign in order to continue developing "Zooniverse Letters"?

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to zutopian's comment.

    Could the Zooniverse start a crowdfunding campaign in order to continue developing "Zooniverse Letters"?

    It could I guess, but does Z have the managerial depth and strength to run/organize such a thing? And who would be in charge of a decent ZL^, if the funding for its creation were to materialize? The track record isn't all that impressive, I feel, and - more fundamentally - there seems to be a serious mismatch of interests.

    ^the current format is hopelessly inadequate for writing decent science papers, IMHO

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian in response to JeanTate's comment.

    It could I guess, but does Z have the managerial depth and strength to run/organize such a thing?

    There had been once a crowdfunding campaign to save the Zooniverse Project "Snapshot Serengeti"!
    Here is a blog article about the campaign.:

    Crowdfunding Snapshot Serengeti , 15 July 2013
    http://blog.snapshotserengeti.org/2013/07/15/crowdfunding-snapshot-serengeti/

    PS: I wonder, what the requested amount of funding for the development of Letters was?

    Posted

  • mlpeck by mlpeck in response to zutopian's comment.

    @zutopian:

    If you think you have something of scientific merit to say that must be written down in the format of a journal paper, why not sign up for a free authorea or overleaf account, learn some LaTeX, and start writing?

    Zooniverse Letters might have been a good idea at the time, but in 2016 any further development would be duplicative at best.

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    Here is a useful news article, which was published yesterday on the website of the journal nature.:

    The manuscript-editing marketplace
    A peer-to-peer website aims to disrupt the author-services industry.
    http://www.nature.com/news/the-manuscript-editing-marketplace-1.19457

    Posted