The latest WeFold paper titled: "An analysis and evaluation of the WeFold collaborative for protein structure prediction and its pipelines in CASP11 and CASP12" was just published in Nature's online open access journal: Scientific Reports.
This publication describes the results and analysis of the CASP11 and CASP12 WeFold coopetition (cooperation and competition), highlighting lessons learned and improvements over the first WeFold attempt from CASP10.
Foldit Players consortium are listed as co-authors, and the Acknowledgements section of the paper begins with: "The authors would like to acknowledge the collaboration of hundreds of thousands of citizen scientists who contributed millions of decoys through the Foldit game."
Congratulations to all of you and keep up the great folding!
Looks like the editors put the foldit names under both the Foldit Consortium and the Rosetta Commons - makes me wonder if the Rosetta Commons people inadvertently got left out.
Very good news! the development team must take into account the breakthrough discoveries in the artificial intelligence - OPEN AI can already solve any logical problems, all that is necessary is an open database of players' actions, then the artificial intelligence will find a short path and an instant state of protein calculation.
at the moment the structure of the protein is indicated on the rama map - it is enough to know the basic logical combinations of atoms, and then the problem will be solved
Normally the affiliations immediately follow the author list on the first page of the paper, but the Foldit Players consortium has an asterisk instead with:
"*A comprehensive list of consortium members appears at the end of the paper."
You can see on the PDF of the paper that the Foldit Players consortium affiliation is on the very last page (and indeed Foldit Player's are affiliated with the Rosetta Commons):
The website version, however, just lists all the authors twice (once at the top under the title, and at the end under the Affiliations section of the Author information). Since the Foldit Player names are not listed with all the other authors, they instead list them twice: once in the Affiliations section and then just below in the Consortia section as well.
… that you list us as co-authors. That's fair, and indeed not completely unmerited because we use (or many time "waste") a lot of time and resources with no certainty of result.
The fact that (more of us) are no specialists might push us to the "acknowledgment" or even anonymous acknowledgment list.
That shows your respect for the poor players (but still enthusiast contributors) we are.
It's a great incentive to continue "playing" with you. A fair game.
For the good of Science.
Thanks again.
Does being listed as a co-author on this paper qualify one
for The Write Stuff Achievement on his/her profile page?
https://fold.it/portal/user/me
We're still figuring out the details of the best way to distribute the achievements, but being a co-author here definitely counts.
I loved this game so included it in my article about Citizen Science:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/05/the-five-citizen-science-butterflies-galaxies-bats-proteins
At least 2 new people are going to start playing as a result :)
@DrHilaryGuite
