Tweet
We still need content for "Use Cases and Success Stories" and "Outlook and Perspective".
-
-
The wiki log shows I added material on December 5. I did not remove or edit any existing material and do not intend to, so I don't know what happened.Originally posted by robs View PostComment
-
On the topic of open access I have located some current thinking of relevance to discussing the forum but it will likely take some additional time to obtain correct permission from the authors and to apply some comparative analysis. My sense is that there is limited time and space at this point for inclusion of this material here.Originally posted by robs View Post
On the other hand, if there is a decision to include accurate details on the country participation to illustrate the support for open science demonstrated here, I would suggest that SEQanswers/authors propose undertaking periodic updates of this metric to enable longer term scientometric monitoring for the growth and expansion of open science and issue an invite to other open science platforms to do the same. This would have particular weight since it has been easy to recognize on this forum the signficance of international contributors who have added to the US-UK 50% bar in figure 3
Depending on the length of the article and with additional material, this report may be suitable as a regular contribution to Science rather than a letter.Comment
-
-
Seems like we are stuck right now. There were no changes over the last week.Originally posted by marcowanger View Post
Could you figure out which part you will be able to work on and which one I should try to tackle next?Comment
-
I agree. Genome Medicine has been waiting since the the 23rd of November. I for one am in a rut because it is so hard to edit and visualize a paper in a wiki. Could we please move to GDocs? I would volunteer to port everything and I would do it tonight.Originally posted by robs View Post
GDoc tracks changes just like a wiki and we can even highlight each contribution with a different highlight color. Besides the key contributors are rather clear at this point anyways....Comment
-
-
I will create a GDoc tonight then without disturbing the wiki. I'm sure Marco is fine with GDocs as well and we can all get our edits in. Let's try to set a goal of Wednesday next week for edits?Comment
-
sorry guys. I was occupied over the week.
Thanks for creating a Gdoc. Will work on it over the weekend...MarcoComment
-
length?
How long will this paper be? I'd like to include an entire section on open access with some comparative data if there'd be room.
Is there a link to the googledoc?Comment
-
Joann, I am almost done setting this up. If you would like to add a section this should be no problem. We have a total of 800-1500 words. I would say we should probably not write an epic, but there should be room for anything you want to add.Originally posted by Joann View Post
Send me a PM and I will send you a link today as soon as I finish it.Comment
-
We should make the link to the gdoc accessible for everyone. Why not post it here?Originally posted by genericforms View PostComment
-
Yes. I will do this.Comment
-
I was trying to find time to add in my edits but it will probably be a couple more days. However I do not want to hold back Marco and Rob and others, so here is the link:
The document is at least now formatted in such a way that we can export and submit directly to the journal. I put the authors that were in the wiki but people should add themselves if I missed someone. Also feel free to change the order.
I shorten the abstract because we only get 200 words (so far it is 144). The remainder of the abstract text was moved to the body not because it flows well but because I did not want to delete it.
Rob should add in the two figures he made. They are great. And we should put in figure legends. People can list references as PUBMED IDs or if they want full text citations. It does not matter though because I will convert it all to endnote before we submit.
With a little bit of formatting and editing, I think we can put this all together next week... I will post my changes by Monday.Comment
-
robs, need your attention, please see the google doc. (comment)Originally posted by robs View Post
MarcoComment
-
I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.
Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...06-18-2026, 07:11 AM -
Data variability is still an issue in sequencing technologies despite the advances in reproducibility and accuracy of these platforms. But the problem does not originate in the sequencing itself, but in the previous steps, before the sample reaches the sequencer.
The first step is collection, followed by preservation and sample preparation for analysis. Most scientists overlook those steps, but not being careful might just be skewing the experiment’s results.
...06-02-2026, 10:05 AM -
With the launch of new single-cell sequencing platforms in 2026, the field stands at an exciting inflection point. This article surveys the most impactful advances in the field and discusses how they’re reshaping research in cancer, immunology, and beyond.
Introduction
Single-cell sequencing technologies have undergone remarkable advances over the past decade, transitioning from low-throughput experimental approaches to highly scalable platforms capable of...05-22-2026, 06:42 AM
Comment