Use a spell and grammar checker

[v00d00]

<pedant>
Ok this isn't the most critical thing ever, but im sure some people look at it and wonder about professionalism, Maybe more if you were looking at the project and possibly contributing. or sponsoring it.

I have noticed that the Project information displayed in the web client sometimes has grammatical erros and occasionally spelling errors. Could the teams putting the workunit descriptions out run them through a spell and grammar checker prior to putting them out.

For example.

Project 16600

This series of GPU projects to simulation the Nonstructural protein 12 (nsp12) and Nonstructural protein 14 (nsp14) complexes. We will screen existing FDA-approved NTP analog drugs (e.g. Ribirine). We aim to repurpose drugs that can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication

I think what it should say is.

Project 16600

This series of GPU projects simulates the Nonstructural protein 12 (nsp12) and Nonstructural protein 14 (nsp14) complexes. We will screen existing FDA-approved NTP analog drugs (e.g. Ribirine). We aim to repurpose any drugs that can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication.

Sorry for being pedantic.
</pedant.

[Neil-B]

Not sure if I agree with your insert of "any" as this changes the meaning of the sentence which is acceptable in the original form .. the "to simulation" is imo less likely to be grammatical or spelling related but may be more related to use of english as a second language ... if it is then tbh I wish I could write technical summaries in a 2nd language that well!!

[v00d00]

All im saying is it takes maybe, 2 secs to click on spell/grammar checker in Office. Regardless of the language it would have highlighted the first sentence as incorrect. As for the rest, you are correct. I am not a scientist working on the folding teams and as such, have no clue if they are doing a broad search for any drug that will work against the covid virus or a specific search for a specific drug.

At the same time if they choose to just carry on doing the same, it doesn't really bother me as long as they keep churning out the workunits. I only highlight it since the name of this forum is "How can we help FAH grow" and because this has been mentioned before in the past and no action was ever taken.

But meh, whatever. Do as you will.

[Neil-B]

Word 2016 has no issues with the grammar for the original paragraph in standard "out of the box" configuration - it allows the sentence construction and "to simulation" ... So a quick grammar/spell check might not have helped in this case?

As to the three spelling suggestions it offers:

"Non-structural" as opposed to "Nonstructural" - but the later (and original appears in both Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries and appears common parlance in scientific literature
"analogue" as opposed to "analog" - but the later is accepted in many English variants especially US English so probably not too much of an issue.
"Fibrine/Rubrene/Roburin/Robeline" as opposed to "Ribirine" - now actually none of the offers are I believe correct … but I cannot find a trace of a drug called Ribirine which may not be surprising as drug names are - there is an antiviral Ribavirin which would make sense but is not what has been typed.

So for my much longer than 2 secs check it would seem that grammar/spell checking tools may not be particularly pedantic in their function ... and that is on a UK English installation - I have lost count of the number of language variants Word now supports but last time I checked it was over 20 grammar variants iirc.

I would love to see much more in depths and less "cookie cutter" descriptions of the projects - but then personally I would accept that the researchers need to be getting on with the research and spending their time on that ... narrative, grammar, spelling, scientific paper drafting standards are important yes - but at the right time ... I am sure if someone is offering to proof and correct description mistakes then that would truly be helping.

[v00d00]

I would settle for the "to simulation" being changed to "simulate". I suspect as you said, it was constructed by a non english speaker or maybe google translated into english. Would you agree for just that one change. The rest is window dressing.

I would also like to see slightly more advanced descriptions.

I would happily proof read descriptions, in fact I think quite a few people would. I can't believe I am the only one that gets irked by it. I'm sure Bruce or one of the other admins could get them pushed through or maybe be given access to directly alter them when they need tweaking.

[JohnChodera]

Thanks for the feedback, folks. We admit that these were all written in a rush due to the need to get data to scientists to help drug COVID-19 targets, but this is an important point. I'll put it on our agenda to brainstorm better solutions (or ways we can crowdsource edits).

~ The Chodera Lab / MSKCC