if something looks too good to be true, it probably is - no great surprise really 
1 Like
You still found it independently. Very hard to find a lens competing with ML algorithms on old data.
1 Like
We are looking forward now into this candidate with observations with HST and spectroscopy. We could end up publishing this object and look forward to get more info.
1 Like
gone sorry for the inconvenienceā¦ This is my first time doing a paperā¦
2 Likes
wow, thankyou so much 
1 Like
This feels more like a research note kind of object than a full paper, particularly given the lack of followup observations. For full papers you have things to consider, like submission fees (for most journals) & refereeing commitments. While RNAAS research notes are capped at 1 table or figure, thereās no limits to how many panels a figure can have, so that shouldnt be an issue.
Iām not opposed to appearing as a coauthor on such a research note, but it should really be done in LaTeX (e.g. Overleaf), where we can format things better. I also have some concerns about the draft that Chris just shared. The wording and language used isnāt entirely consistent with that of a scientific publication. Would need some work for me to be comfortable publishing with my name attached.
1 Like
We should also double and triple check that this isnt in a published list somewhere. Sometimes lists can evade vizier and simbad.
Sorry, Iād shouldāve said āResearcher Noteā
Agreed. LaTeX is very good, especially for maths insertions. If I can offer some tips @ChrisSnell88 :
- For quotes to papers (Name et al., year) try to use the format: name/names (up to 4 per paper, above 4 use et al - put et al in italics
- For names, list them in order of importance (or order of published paper if referring). Try to reference authors as in this example. Do not put Names., et al and then list the names. Either list names or put main author et al., and then asterisk to other people. You can list them as surname then first name but it is more common to do it the other way. You can use fist names fully or initials.
- Abstract should summarise aims, methods and findings. It shouldnāt have any timelines. Following an abstract, a short introduction of the paper should be given. It should very briefly explain the question behind the science proposed.
- Try not to use screenshots.
- A key words section is nice to have
This example is good, many others can be seen on arXiv
Hope that helps 
Hereās a research note I wrote last year, as an example of what RNAAS look like. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ac780a
Youāll notice that its quite short as thereās a 1500 word limit. Gotta pack as much science is to as little wordage as possible. This is one of the reasons that saying āperson A noticed this, then person B checked that, and person C is planning on doing thisā is a bad way of formatting. Just use āweā for everything, regardless of who did it, and stick to the important stuff.
For example, āwas found to be unpublished and uncataloged according to Tom Bickleā is unnecessary. The fact its unpublished is implied in the fact that weāre publishing its discovery. (Iāve also never read a scientific publication that individually lists what each author did/said, so is probably just bad practice in general).
3 Likes
@tombickle I found your note really interesting. I have read/watched everything I can about the search for the hypothetical Planet 9.
1 Like
@ChrisSnell88
I disapprove your conduct as your āpaperā is a paragraph which looks to swap the first discoverer by recalling a chat, but mainly is a plagiarism from my post.
This content is far from sufficient to be a type of letter submitted to RNAAS and I donāt want to be your co-author.
Greetings
2 Likes
Ahh. This is my first time authoring a paperā¦ Thanks!
1 Like
Bit harsh.
2 Likes
No worries! There can be a few quirks to it - happy to proofread stuff if you want. Equally, I would like to add that in some cases these rules can be broken (see abstract).
So sorry but maybe somebody else could publish this?
1 Like
Donāt give up that easy. You seemed excited to publish it; donāt let @c_cld discourage you. For what its worth, I think his tone was disappointing, and while heās right about it being insufficient quality for RNAAS in its current form, his accusation of plagiarism is absurd. From what I can see, the only similarities between his post and your draft are the angular radius of the einstein ring and some publicly available HSC data.
If he doesnt want to be involved, he doesnt have to be - just write it up without his name attached.
This is a good opportunity to learn. Iād encourage you to persevere with this. If you need help with Overleaf or the style/formatting of scientific writing, iād be very happy to help out.
3 Likes
Tom is entirely right. Claudeās aggression was unnecessary and, frankly, donāt bother including anyone in your paper who hasnāt helped substantially. If that means just you, ed and the guy who first spotted it as the authors, then I think that is best. Best of luck.
2 Likes
The answer isā¦ No, Iām just a noob on publishing and I just said that is my first time drafting a paper.
@c_cld thinks I disrespected his/her, I was just here to tell one of my friends about I forgot about this post of this new candidate. I was just here to tell Claude about giving thoughts on this candidate. but whatever Tombickle said, he is obviously wrong there. @c_cld did not discourage meā¦ She was just here. I have gotten a reply about. Now below is what this says.
Like
Itās because some people donāt even know what theyāre doing for one part: you know, being forgetful. The discovery of this is way before I even know Zooniverse until I saw Galaxy Zoo in October 2021 and not before the thread. and even a month later Claude has independently found this candidate and posted it onto Galaxy Zoo discussion even while I forget things. Not checking frequently, just busy at work and doing random things and chores and there was NO reply on this candidate because I missed out! (See below)
I ālostā this discussion. As when I see this reply that you thought was an aggression and thought I was drafting a paper which obviously turned to complete garbage. Even when he/she replied to
me and made me get rid of the link.
So, Legacy Survey and Galaxy Zoo have little relationship with each other, which both there is already a discussion site. even though Galaxy Zoo is more popular than Legacy Survey discuss site. Even people, and mostly of the Galaxy Zoo team donāt speak about this site. Only 25% of volunteers look to legacysurvey.org and 75% do nothing but stay at Galaxy Zoo. (They had no idea there was already a discussion site before they used images from the DECaLS survey.
So this explains why @tombickle and @Niko are wrong entirely.
1 Like
I dont fully understand what youāre trying to say.
Look, ultimately its up to you whether you write it up or not. But I will say that someone posting it on GZ doesnāt preclude it from being written up by anyone else. Ed found it independently.
2 Likes