Difference between revisions of "Calls"

From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
===Biocuration poster===
===Biocuration poster===
* Will send to Raymond for printing @caltech
* Will send to Raymond for printing @caltech
* files for future reference here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0B_LC59YpkJJBUlgxY2Z3S0VybFU
* note that the ppt looks funny in google slides, the pdf version of it is the final look

Revision as of 19:55, 21 March 2017

March 21 2017


Data not shown original Article

  • Tim: Shall we not emphasize in the micropub that the "data not shown" was mentioned in another paper? Will journals think that "data not shown" belongs to that journal?
  • The reviewer to which we sent out the cyb-3 micropub last week suggested the opposite: make sure that in the micropub is emphasized that it was data mentioned but not shown in a previous publication. Cite the publication.
  • Ask Ruth Isaacson's advice?

Micropubs embedded in Minipubs

  • send out for review just the mini pub or each individual micropub first? We touched on the topic last friday (Tim, Karen, Daniela). Tim was suggesting to send out just the mini pub.
  • Pros:
    • We use less reviewers
  • Cons:
    • we normally assign DOIs to the micropubs AFTER the reviewer approves the micropub
    • we think of building up MINIpubs from existing micropubs. In the case we are dealing with, we are defragmenting a longer piece into smaller pieces
    • to mirror the process on how we would deal it in the future, we should send individual findings to reviewers first, we could send a couple of micros to each reviewer: e.g. one will evaluate the 2 expression results, the other will evaluate the phenotype ones.

Biocuration poster


  • Received one submission out of 8 requests.

March 8 2017

Agenda and minutes

  • Celebrate the score
    • Paul e-mailed the program director and see what the percentage is
    • critique was good, few minor points to address, e.g.:
      • high throughput data
      • collaboration with publishers -we could contact e-life, collaboration with the Coko foundation deals with the publishing cycle already
      • charging for submissions? yes for companies, not for academia, will say we will waive submission charges for academia
  • Booth at the IWM
    • Shall we have one?
      • yes, we will have one, pay through WB
  • Booklet at the IWM (see github #52)
    • Gather micros to generate the booklet
      • booklet: have one of two each flavor submissions
data not shown: 1 or more
reagent: e.g. gal-4 drivers
new interesting unpublished data 
negative data
ask people what would you like to see published-what you know as common knowledge and has never been published
    • Distribute booklet at posters that feature the micros and at booth (WB, Nemametrix, TransgeneOme(?) etc)
  • Tim's micropub -how to deal with longer narratives
    • Daniela/Karen will work with Tim to get the atomized data from his submission and will work to generate the MINI-Publication (composed of 2+ micros)
    • Confidence rating discussion (shall we allow authors to put in the confidence level of a result)
  • Mitani alleles (see github #51)
    • Can Paul reach out to Shohei and initiate the collaboration?
      • yes he will. We might set up a conf call with Mitani to discuss it in greater detail
      • we can think of having robot generated descriptions for the mitani alleles
      • if a mitani allele is tested by someone else and gets different results it will be a new micro that will cite the original submission from Mitani
  • Alternatives for the current Micropublication: biology site (see github #25)
    • very time consuming right now loading articles into our current site, we need to figure out how to make this more efficient- can we get something better for the 20-50 articles in time for the IWM?
      • Daniel W could dedicate some time on the project at the beginning (manual entry), we will continue to look into alternatives and, if the grant goes in, we will implement this in phase 1
  • Other points
    • microreviews

2106 meetings