Discussions *about* the Quench project? About the Stage 2 and Stage 3 processes?
-
by
JeanTate
Is it possible for a new section to be created, one in which we can have discussions about the Quench project (rather than just about the objects, data analysis, etc)? Where we can have discussions about what happens, in a typical astronomy project, in the data analysis and paper-writing phases?
I'd be very interested in taking part in any such discussions.
Some of the things I'd like to discuss are (not an exhaustive list, nor intended to be prioritized in any way):
- the data: do all members of a research team - the people who end up with their names, as authors, on a published paper - get the same access to data?
- the background: similarly, do all team members get access to the details of how the objects to be studied were selected?
- public vs private: in the Quench project, everything is open, and zooite non-participants (and non-zooites?) can get the same data as active participant zooites. It seems to me that this is quite different to how it works normally; is that so?
- the role of lead: other than when there are only two or three researchers involved, is it normal for one researcher to take the lead? To map out the scope and direction of the research project (even if they constantly seek feedback and consensus)?
- dealing with anomalies and outliers: are there standardized ways for identifying and handling these? If not standardized, perhaps 'by convention' approaches?
- to what extent is this project as much about giving ordinary zooites an opportunity to 'learn by doing' (re data analysis, say) as it is about doing the research?
- ditto, re learning about what's actually involved in going from data collection to publishing a paper?
What do you think?
Posted