@jgeach: thanks.

The MNRAS website clearly states:
"Free Zooniverse Papers - All Zooniverse papers published in MNRAS are now free to read online. Click here to see the full list of articles."

I haven't yet found that statement on the MNRAS website (their Search tool doesn't seem to work, for the site itself; rather, it's good for searching papers etc); I'll keep digging, and write up what I found in a later post.

Searching for "Zooniverse" returned 15 hits; here they are (links are to what you get when you click on the Available here link on the Zooniverse Publications page):

• Marshall+ (2016), full MNRAS PDF, no paywall
• Simpson+ (2012), MNRAS abstract, no paywall
• Smith+ (2011), ADS entry, no paywall
• Fischer+ (2012), ADS entry, no paywall
• Banfield+ (2015), arXiv preprint abstract, no paywall
• Geach+ (2015), arXiv full PDF, no paywall
• More+ (2016), not on Zooniverse Publications page! link is to MNRAS full PDF, no paywall
• Davis+ (2012), ADS entry, no paywall
• Küng+ (2015), arXiv full PDF, behind a paywall!
• Boyajian+ (2016) , MNRAS Sign In Page!!, behind a paywall!
• Smethurst+ (2015), full MNRAS PDF, no paywall
• Shamir&Wallin (2014), not on Zooniverse Publications page! link is to MNRAS Sign In, behind a paywall!
• Willett+ (2013), arXiv preprint abstract, no paywall
• Huang+ (2013), not on Zooniverse Publications page! link is to MNRAS full PDF, no paywall
• Hoyle+ (2011), ADS entry, no paywall

Clearly, whoever is in charge of the Zooniverse Publications page is being quite inconsistent, at least in regard to what you get when you click on "Available here", and completeness of the publications. It's also curious, but perhaps understandable, that there are some conflicts with the year of publication.

Later I will check to see what papers on the Zooniverse Publications page are, in fact, published in MNRAS, but not among the above 15. And also cross-check against the list you referenced.

I've finished taking at look at the astronomy-related "papers" on the ZPubs page, and the Zooniverse ones on the MNRAS Z page.

The results are pretty disturbing, considering that, as I understand it, precision and accuracy are essential for doing science.

There are 42 papers on the MNRAS Z page; three entries are wrong (all links are to the ZPubs "Available here" URL, unless otherwise stated):

• Davis+ (2102) has an erroneous title; it's "The distribution of interplanetary dust between 0.96 and 1.04 au as inferred from impacts on the STEREO spacecraft observed by the heliospheric imagers", but the MNRAS entry adds "Galaxy Zoo Supernovae" to the end

• "Galaxy Zoo Supernovae" is a link, to Smith+ (2011), but there's no author list

• The title of Kaviraj+ (2012) is on the page ("Galaxy Zoo: dust and molecular gas in early-type galaxies with prominent dust lanes"), but the author list and link is wrong (it's to Fischer+ (2012))

Excluding Kaviraj+ (2012) and Smith+ (2011), there are 12 ten papers on the ZPubs page, which have been published in MNRAS but are not among the MNRAS Z papers:

• Banfield+ (2015)
• Boyajian+ (2015)
• Hoyle+ (2012) (there is a Hoyle+ (2011) paper, but it's different)
• Küng+ (2015)
• Marshall+ (2016)
• Marshall+ (2016) - as noted above, this should be More+ (2016)
• Schawinski+ (2014)
• Simmons+ (2014)
• Smethurst+ (2015)
• Teng+ (2012)
• Way (2011)
• Willett+ (2015)

The MNRAS published version of ten eight of these 12 ten is available from the MNRAS website; the exceptions are Boyajian+ (2015), and Küng+ (2015), both of which are behind the MNRAS paywall (as has been noted upthread, for Küng+ (2015)).

Update: as @KWillett points out (see below), Teng+ (2012) and Way+ (2011) are not published in MNRAS.

Hey @pittbull, did you maybe try Submit a Question for NASA website? If not, you can choose "Other" under Subject and type in your own Subject heading. Then there is also Contact SMD - NASA Science. The scientists you contacted directly are probably very busy. If you ask your questions through the public route, they might answer you, after all NASA has a very good Public Relations track record.

You can also try UC Davis - Earth and Planetary Sciences. Then, lastly, you can try The Geological Society of the United Kingdom where you can ask questions about Planetary Geology and if you click on the link on that page regarding Tectonic plates on other planets - you will find a friend! A scientist that is of the same opinion as you

P.S. I however tend to agree with the scientists who say there are plate tectonics on other planets, maybe not entirely similar as the earth, but there, nonetheless

China suspends 104 planned coal power plants, January 16, 2017
by Zachary Davies Boren
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/01/16/china-coal-power-overcapacity-crackdown/

Hi Jenna,

For this information, you'll want to look at the results of projects, which aren't hosted on the Zooniverse platform (as we aren't a long-term data repository) -- that is the responsibility of the research org. Many teams will post a URL in the 'Results' tab of the About page, or use the banner feature to link to final transcripts. Note also that teams have a window of 2 years after their project's completion in which to make results publicly available, in order to allow time for publication and/or quality assurance or review methods.

The examples that @am.zooni shared and the Mutual Muses project that Jim shared above are all great examples, and I'll add a few more to the list:

• Results from the pilot transcription effort for the Davy Notebooks Project)
• Results of the completed Shakespeare's World project

Happy to answer any other questions you may have (I'm the Humanities Research Lead for Zooniverse), either here or we can also set up a time to chat if you reach out to contact[at]zooniverse[dot]org. Cheers!

The projects with the new interface format are all failing.

There is a brief view of the project page and then that is replaced with a Zooniverse screen with only the bottom of the page links visible.

Found on Maine History, Davy Notebook, and NMS NHS projects.

Ah, that is a shame. Technically I don't have a project myself (yet). I came across this one that my friend was doing some cataloguing work with

https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/judaicadh/scribes-of-the-cairo-geniza/

The whole thing struck me - and everyone else viewing it today - as very poorly designed. My inner web developer instantly jumped out so I reached out to the owners offering to redesign it to be more intuitive and readable. I created an account to get familiar with the builder but I guess it's just... mostly stuck like that? Which is a real shame.

It's a lot easier to get volunteers for a project with a clear, logical design and I had hoped the builder would allow further customisation to achieve that. The Davy Notebooks project is certainly better but definitely still has issues.

Thanks for your response, and good luck in whatever projects you have!

Just started. U3A volunteer - need to get task clear for other members
Job: transcribing Sir Humphrey Davies's notebooks
Question: just what is meant by transcribe ? Is it -

• reproduce the handwritten script exactly as it is written, or
• translate all the abbreviations e.g. 'Sulph Mag' as 'Sulphate of Magnesium'
  Thanks

Hi @Thanetian. Welcome. The Davy Notebooks Project will be happy to have the help of you and your members. However, they are unlikely to see your questions on this talk page, which focuses on the Zooniverse as a whole. Please repeat your questions on the Davy Notebooks Project Talk page. The project's team is very active and will respond.

The project includes thorough help materials, so be sure to read it all. This includes the FAQ page, the text on the Classify pages, the "need some help" text linked below the fields on the Classify pages, the tutorial (link on the upper right above the questions on the Classify pages, and the excellent Field Guide (linked lower center on the Classify pages or tab on right edge of Talk page). There is also a great deal of helpful information on the Talk page.

I agree that this thread can be difficult to follow, in part due to its huge scope. However, I think it may be quite difficult to tease out three major themes, say, and so split the discussion.

On the topic of participation by children and teens, in online CS projects such as those under the Zooinverse brand, one important aspect has not yet been mentioned (though I may well have missed it): the laws in various different countries.

There are laws seeking to regulate, restrict, guide, etc the online activities of juveniles (I'll use that to cover everyone under age 18, or whatever is the 'threshold age'), likely in nearly all the countries in which most zooites live. Are these laws consistent? Do some of them mandate parental consent? Invest ultimate responsibility for online activity in the parents/guardians? Are there laws which mandate actions which the Zooniverse, or any of its individual projects, must take (re 'signing in', participating, access to personal data, etc), beyond those which apply to everyone? Must the Zooniverse's lawyers (and those associated with each project) be sufficiently cognizant of the relevant laws in all countries (or at least those with registered users) so they may be as certain as they can reasonably be expected to be that there are no violations of any relevant laws?

Beyond laws - which cannot be broken, knowingly or not, on pain of sanctions - there are ethical concerns.

For example, in the Acknowledgement sections of 'Zooinverse papers', one can read text like this (from Keel+ 2012):

This work would not have been possible without the contributions of citizen scientists as part of the Galaxy Zoo project. We particularly thank Hannah Hutchins, Elizabeth Baeten, Massimo Mezzoprete, Elizabeth Siegel, Aida Berges, and users voyager1682002 and Caro, who each examined all of the galaxies in the targeted AGN sample, and in addition Christian Manteuffel, for assistance in compiling the list of SDSS AGN candidates. We are grateful to the following additional Galaxy Zoo participants who contributed to the targeted AGN search: Michael Aarons, Mark Ackland, AdrianusV, Aerial, alexob6, Daniela Alice, Norvan Allen, Anderstp, AndrewM, angst, Anjinsan, ARCHEV, artemiit, aryamwojn, astrobrainiac, astronomicom1, Markku Autio, Michelle Ayers, Elisabeth Baeten, R. Balick, Michael Balzer, Michael Derek Barnett, Kirsten Barr, Barbara Ann Barrett, David Bartlett, Coral Benham, Aida Berges, Mark Bernaldo, Chiheb Boussema, Gwen Brogmus, Dave Browne, brunochi, buddyjesus, David Burt, cadou, caliz83, Capella, Alice Carlsen, Caro, Jiri Cejka, Theodore J. Celaya Sr., chairstar, citisue3, Nick Clarke, Ana Claudia, cloud9, clua, David N. Cook, coral, Gemma Coughlin, Rob Cowhey, Penny Cox, Laurence Cuffe, cyprien, DancesWithWords, Darren, DarthKeribo, Lloyd Daub, daveb, dave3, david_mbe, david_nw, Michael C. Davis Jr., distel, Dobador, Shane Dobkins, drawm, Juliette Dowle, Elizabeth Duff, Graham Dungworth, dxjerlubb, dzd, Michael Easterly, echo, Alan Eggleston, Thomas Erickson, ErroneousBee, Falconet, firejuggler, frisken, Gino, glyphon, GNB080, gordhaddow, Michael Gronceski, grrower1, Michael Hand, Thomas Hardy, Hans Heilman, Steph Hill, Thomas Hobbs, Rick Holtz, Rob Hounsell, hrutter, Mikko Huovinen, IC1101, ixzrtxp, Nina Jansen, Alain Jaureguiberry, jayton, jczoehdo, jhyatt, David E. Johnson, Steve Johnson, David James Jones, John Kelly, khwdfnwit, Pat Kieran, KillerSkaarj, kiske1, knuid, kokdeblade, Anuradha Koratkar, Michi Kovacs, kzhndepnd Marc Laidlaw, laihro01, landersonzych, Lily Lau WW, lawless, Bill Lawrence, Kathleen Littlefield, Liz, Marc Lluell, Michael Lopez, lpspieler, luigimx, Lzsp, Michael MacIsaac, Christine Macmillan, Katie Malik, Steve Malone, mardo, Lelah Marie, Mark, Michael Marling, Stephanie R. Marsala, Mauro Marussi, marxpmp, Mark McCormack, Rob Mellor, Massimo Mezzoprete, mgn, Michaelr1415, MichaelRoberts, MichaelSangerTx, milkncookies, miraculix250, Elspeth Mitchell, Graham Mitchell, mlvgofjedxv, mothic, Mukund, mykyij, NGC3372, Julian Nicol, Rick Nowell, nrbeuw, Richard Oram, orion, oswego9050, pbungaro, Alice Peachey, Thomas Perraudin, Amanda Peters, Erica Pinto, plum- merj, Jim Porter, Steven Porter, Richard Proctor, ptkypxdh, randa, RandyC, Kim Reece, Jessica Reeder, RelativisticDog2, Thomas Rickenbach, ripw, rjwarmv, rnjrchd, Michael Roberts, RobinMiller, Jim Robinson, roborali, Rona, Geoff Roynon, Paul Rutten, Rynnfox, S4CCG, Michael Salmon, salteV, Jeroen Sassen, second_try, Matt Sellick, sheba, Alice Sheppard, SianElderxyz, Nanne Sierkstra, Michael Simmons, SJPorter, skepticdetective, Stephen Sliva, Mark Smith, Sophie378, spat, Maria Steinrueck, stella13, stellar390, John H. Stewart, Doug Stork, sumoworm, superhouse, tadaemdg, Auralee Tamison, Chet Thomas, thom_2, Michael Thorpe, timchem, torres, Trixie64, Ramon van der Hilst, Marcel Veillette, Rob H.B. Velthuis, John Venables, Michael Viguet, vkhtmhfigou, Aileen Waite, David Walland, wbybjbpv, weezerd, Mark Westover, Julia Wilkinson, Nat T. Winston III, Windsmurf, wpubphx, xuhtjhc, xzxupfqjd, and Mairi Yates. We also thank the referee, who caught a mistake in calculating light-delay times and helped make the discussion more comprehensive. Jean Tate helped to untangle some issues of participant discovery order.

I'm fairly sure that to be included in this list, the zooites needed to give explicit permission to use either their real names or their handles (how well, and comprehensively, this is done for every such paper I do not know). If any of these zooites were juveniles at the time, is it OK that only they gave such permission? Should the Zooniverse, and the authors of such papers, go the extra mile to ensure that juveniles also have the permission of their parents/guardians? This may be important, legally, in some countries, but I think the more general ethical principle is more important.

Some years ago there was an excellent series of GZ blog posts under the heading "She's an Astronomer" (link). If anything similar were to be kicked off, for any Zooinverse project (or the Zooniverse in general), should the coordinator/editor include juveniles? exclude them? On the one hand, offering encouragement in such a high-profile way would surely be good, right? On the other hand, what ethical aspects should be considered? An example: here in the US there are a great many high schools where students are subjected to intense peer-pressure to not 'act white' or 'act Asian', and one such behavior is to excel academically. Suppose a student at such a high school - in South Side Chicago say, or Baltimore - were to become deeply involved in a Zooinverse project, and be considered for write-up in something like a "She's an Astronomer" blog post. The student herself may be strongly motivated to agree to being written-up, but should the editor first engage with her parents? The school's teachers and principal?

What do you think?