One of the most important things we’ll be trying over the next year is to have EteRNA players start writing their own papers – share your hypotheses and experimentally validated knowledge with the entire scientific community!
We (the devs) will of course help with the first submitted papers, but eventually our hope is that we won’t be directly involved (and won’t even be authors). That means we need to teach you how to formalize your knowledge.
As a sort of pilot experiment, we are wondering if we could get your help in reviewing the RNA literature. JP Bida, a postdoctoral fellow in my lab, and I are writing a review on recent approaches and problems in RNA design. (Note that Jp is working with me on the new ‘cloud’ for EteRNA experiments as well.)
One remaining task is to ‘score’ the reviewed papers – a few need to be marked as ‘recommended’ and as ‘highly recommended’. We were wondering what you – the EteRNA citizen science community – think about these papers, and whether you would recommend additional publications. Indeed, we’re very curious to see if you have similar rankings to us.
Jp has prepared a reference list with approximate categories, compiled links to the PDFs, and a Google spreadsheet to record your numerical rankings (1 to 5, where 5 is most recommended) and comments. He’s putting them in the next post below.
We’d welcome your thoughts on as many or as few of the papers that you can look through. This is totally experimental and voluntary – but could be the beginning of something transformative in publishing!
As a second stage, we’re thinking of also posting Jp’s draft in a week or so, and getting your comments about the text itself – are any of you interested in help with this?
Feel free to add additional comments or suggestions below.