Open amrhoades opened 4 years ago
amrhoades
commented
4 years ago https://ipds.usgs.gov (need to be on VPN) and read the general guidance at https://www.usgs.gov/about/organization/science-support/survey-manual/5023-fundamental-science-practices-peer-review .
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Hi all! @aappling-usgs (and @jread-usgs) I would love a quick proofreading / tone check on this email to potential reviewers (Jack Eggleston and Megan Shoda, first runner up Daren Carlisle). Specific questions:
Also:
Hi there, ____!
My name is Ellen Bechtel, and I’m a Data Visualization Specialist with the USGS Water Mission Area’s IIDD Data Science Branch. It’s nice to virtually meet you! I work with a team here called Makerspace which is charged with creating visual stories about the science going on within the WMA, and we’re working on a story right now about the Delaware River Basin in light of NGWOS and IWOS.
We’ve been working with Brian Pellerin and Kendra Russell in the River Master’s office on this piece for a few weeks, and we’re hoping to release the story as a webpage in August timed with the release of some new ECOMAPPER data being published in August. Right now, we’ve reached the stage of needing IPDS review, and both of the project champions here – Jordan Read and Alison Appling – attended your presentation at the __ and thought you would be able to provide very helpful feedback before we publish. It certainly would be a huge help to us to get a fresh set of eyes to review how we’re communicating the science going on there!
Would you be open to reviewing our project next week for IPDS?
We would be able to send you a link to the Beta site, as well as a PDF or Word document of stills from the story for you to write comments on. We could get it to you by this Monday at the soonest, though the web page is progressing rapidly and we could provide an update mid-week if you haven’t gotten to review the piece by then. We would be looking for feedback by the end of the week (Friday the 24th) so we could incorporate feedback before publishing the first week of August.
Let me know if you’d be open to this. Of course, no worries if it’s not possible. Either way, I hope you’re having a good week and managing to stay safe and sane these days!
Thanks, Ellen
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago Yep, tone is great. I think you can call Megan "Meg".
IWOS should be IWAAs (integrated water availability assessments)
ECOMAPPER seems to be capitalized EcoMapper (https://www.ysi.com/ecomapper)
1 week with an update mid-week is a really short timeline - I think 2 weeks is a pretty standard minimum for long-form products except when you're desperate. Could you give them until Wednesday, July 29?
For the "how we know you" part, how about:
Our project champions, Jordan Read and Alison Appling, suggested you as a potential reviewer due to your broad knowledge of water resources issues and USGS activities in the DRB.
Jordan and Jack see each other in meetings of Branch Chiefs all the time, and they share interests in remote sensing. I've known Jack for a few years, have had him review a manuscript once, etc. I've exchanged an email or two with Meg about our respective DRB activities, and Sam has talked with Meg about temperature data harmonization.
Can you get the request for review into either the first paragraph or the first sentence of the second paragraph? If it doesn't feel too cheesy when you try it, I'd even consider bolding that one sentence. Also, title of the email can be something like "Request for internal review on DRB data visualization".
There's a balance to strike between saving your own time (by not spending tons of your own time refining an email) and saving recipients' time (by making an email concise), but if this were my email I'd do one more pass to see if there were details or words I'd be OK cutting to make this as fast as possible to read. To be clear, the writing is good already; it's just that short can be so important for getting a faster reply from a busy person.
Contact info: https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/jack-eggleston?qt-staff_profile_science_products=3#qt-staff_profile_science_products, https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/megan-shoda?qt-staff_profile_science_products=0#qt-staff_profile_science_products
ORCIDs: the spreadsheet is "ORCIDs.xlsx" in the top level of the Files in the "Branch - Data Science" Teams channel.
amrhoades
commented
4 years ago I'd suggest sending over a quick "hi, are you interested in and available to participate in a IPDS review for a DRB viz story". If they respond with yes, you can shoot over more detail about the background. Or they may request more info before committing. Either way, a short, pithy request seems like it would be sufficient to kick-off communications on the topic.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago That's all super helpful feedback - especially re: keeping it short and sending over more details later. Just sent this:
Hi there, Meg! My name is Ellen Bechtel, and I’m a Data Visualization Specialist with the USGS Water Mission Area’s IIDD Data Science Branch. It’s nice to virtually meet you! I work with a team here called Makerspace and we’re working on a story right now about the Delaware River Basin in light of NGWOS and IWAAS. Both of the project champions here – Alison Appling and Jordan Read – suggested you as a potential reviewer due to your broad knowledge of water resources issues and USGS activities in the DRB. Would you be open to reviewing our work for IPDS over the next week and a half?
Let me know, and if you’re open to it, I’ll send over some more specific details. Either way, I hope you’re having a good week and managing to stay safe and sane these days! Thanks, Ellen
And will follow up with the rest of the details later. Thank you guys!
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago @aappling-usgs @jread-usgs @amrhoades
Do you think it would be appropriate to send a screenshot of the inked watercolor map of the DRB that we've got for the intro/outro?
Megan just responded with a yes (woohoo!) but is curious to know more about what kind of story we're talking about. I'm describing it like this:
As for some background - We’ve been working with Brian Pellerin and Kendra Russell in the River Master’s office on creating a visual-based story of the science going on in the DRB, and we’re hoping to release the story as a webpage in August timed with the release of some new EcoMapper data being published around then too.
The webpage is full of maps, visualizations, and illustrations that are intended to explain to a general public audience some key scientific issues, tools, and collaborations that the USGS is a part of related to water in the DRB. It certainly would be a huge help to us to get a fresh set of eyes on it.
but would love to include this screenshot if you think that's not giving too much away too early.
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago Go for it. You can even send a link to the living page if you want.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Next up, ORCIDs.
Do I include ORCIDs for everyone in MxS who's worked on the project? Do we have a preference for how we rank the authors, since IPDS requires the ranking? One option:
Should I add anyone else?
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago I'd say the more important question than ORCIDs is who should be a coauthor. And then note the ORCID for anybody who has one (I think IPDS makes them optional for non-first authors? but maybe requires for all USGS staff? either way, as you know, it's easy to get one).
But yeah, the coauthor question - maybe we should discuss what the bar is for coauthorship sometime soon. Definitely include the people you've listed above as a starting point.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago From Jack:
Ellen - That sounds doable. It would be very helpful to have a template or checksheet to follow. Those exist for reviews of data releases and of software, but I have not reviewed a web story before.
Jack
Do we have something like that? @amrhoades, I know you talked about the webform questions you made for Gages - perhaps we can turn those questions into a list of prompts (as a kind of checksheet or template) for what kinds of feedback we're looking for. What do you think? Could you paste those questions here, so I can make that checksheet if we decide we want to send one to Jack and Meg?
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Hi @jread-usgs and @aappling-usgs - I am putting together the document for the reviewers, and wanted to include some guidance on how we're envisioning the review process going. Jack specifically asked for it, and the IPDS Guidelines say that we need to provide it, but I think it's especially useful for us too.
Could you give it a look-over and see what you think? Feel free to make any edits.
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago I added comments in the doc.
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago Oh, but two more things:
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago From teams: Hi all! Could I ask for eyes from @jread-usgs , @aappling-usgs , and @amrhoades (and @abriggs-usgs and @collnell if you have time) to look over a Word Doc to send to the IPDS Reviewers? It includes:
A few notes:
Thank you guys for your help! Woohoo cranking along!
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Sent the comment-free copies to the reviewers! I tried to upload it to the IPDS content platform, and am not sure if I did it right. Could I grab one of the champions (@aappling-usgs or @jread-usgs) tomorrow for 5-10 mins to screenshare and make sure the back end paperwork on the IPDS platform looks right?
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Review received from Meg! Here is her document. She says:
Hi Ellen,
I'm attaching my review of your story. I used your word doc and added my comments and suggestions in track changes.
I understand the big picture of the story and there are some clear and well presented ideas here. I thought the visualizations were fun and it's nice to see our science presented in a stylized way. I made a fair number of editorial comments and suggestions. These are provided for your consideration. I tagged a handful of them with "MUST ADDRESS". In those comments, I feel strongly that you should take another look at the text and clarify, etc. I'm happy to talk through any of the comments or suggestions as you read through them.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this story and get a sneak peek at the new page. I'm excited to see it live. Meg Shoda
DRB-for-IPDS-prereview.MES.docx
I'll upload her document to the IPDS platform, and do a quick parse this morning to see if there are any "MUST ADDRESS" things that we can do easily before Tuesday's demo (I'll make a proposal and post it to this issue). Then I'll go through the comments with a fine-tooth comb on Tuesday afternoon after demo and we can discuss them further.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago I've made a new copy of Meg's comments where I've responded to the comments and edited some of the things she's pointed out. Ultimately, we'll polish those responses and upload them to IPDS.
However, there are four issues that I'd like some advice on. The point in question is in bold within each section.
Document is here: Response to Meg's Comments
Descriptions of the four main issues below:
Original Text: "Today’s flow management in the Basin is handled through formal cooperation among federal, state, and local entities. At the highest level, the USGS Delaware River Master and the Delaware River Basin Commission review development proposals, regulate water withdrawals and diversions, and evaluate the effects of human activities throughout the Basin. In addition, these two regulatory groups sometimes intervene to direct water releases from major reservoirs throughout the Basin at key times of year."
MUST ADDRESS Is the office of the Delaware River Master regulatory? I could have missed that aspect of their work, but I would be cautious here because the USGS is notoriously known for being unbiased and non-regulatory
“Because it has no regulatory or management mandate, the USGS provides impartial science…” https://www.usgs.gov/information-policies-and-instructions
The River Master’s office does make decisions about management, so is there another word besides “regulatory” that would accurately reflect their role?
Original Text: "For example, brook trout are the only native trout species within the DRB, and they prefer cold water temperatures. Specifically, cooler fall water temperatures are an important environmental cue to initiate their reproductive cycle. If the late summer flows aren’t strong enough to cool down the trout habitat, then the trout don’t get a clear cue. Even in the other seasons, trout can be negatively impacted when water temperatures are too high – warm water reduces growth rates and can make trout more susceptible to diseases."
MUST ADDRESS And what does that mean? Lack of a clear cue means that the reproductive cycle doesn’t get initiated and… they don’t spawn? The population is reduced? Make the actual effect clearer.
can we say..."then the trout don't get a clear cue to begin their reproductive cycle."? Or is there a better way to describe this?
Original Text: "[Temperature] Water temperature is a key factor in the health of many aquatic organisms, and better, broader, and faster delivery of water temperature data can help plan reservoir releases and decide when to fish. New temperature sensors were added to 98 locations in the DRB."
How is it better? More accurate? Also, “decide when to fish” doesn't make sense and needs a subject. Revise.
Good catch. How is it better? And, can we leave the fishing part out, and just end the sentence after "help plan reservoir releases"?
Original Text: "Cool, Clean, and Confident: How Science informs Water Management in the Delaware River Basin"
I wish that these words were all in reference to the same thing. For example, the waters of the river can be cool and clean, but they can’t be confident. We can be confident in the data, but data can’t be clean or cool. What do these words represent? What is clean, cool and confident?
I also think they are a little disjointed from the main messages of the story. I’m reading the main messages to be: 1) flow needs to be carefully measured and regulated, 2) water quality is related to flow and is considered in the releases, etc and 3) the USGS is doing new and continued monitoring and modeling to make this complicated science easier to understand for decision makers. These 3 messages don’t connect with the 3 words here.
What about: Plentiful, clean, cool (? Something like that)
We’re glad that those three messages came across – that’s exactly what we were intending to communicate! We’ll keep workshopping titles, with the intent to stay in line with those points. We'll bring a few more options to demo to Brian et al on Tuesday 7/28 so that we can get input from everybody.
Generally, I'm working on making it feel more conclusion-y. Will report back soon!
jordansread
commented
4 years ago I am 99% sure that the office of the Delaware River Master is the only regulatory body in the USGS, so I think she is wrong there, but it is Kendra's position, so let's make sure she supports whatever language choice is made there.
I'm not super comfortable with this sentence
If the late summer flows aren’t strong enough to cool down the trout habitat, then the trout don’t get a clear cue.
And would suggest we delete it. Temperature and flow are related, but sometimes higher flow makes waters warmer (e.g., a "baseflow" - or low-flow - condition can result in very cold water that is near the temperature of ground water). Can we delete the sentence completely? I think the spawning cue stuff is pretty complicated when it comes to actual effects, like gonad growth, how the timing works with available food supplies and/or predators, and more.
I know we're already a little long with the amount of text we have, but it may be important to say that the temperature data (or our monitoring data in general) also have value to the general public in its most basic form. Perhaps:
Water temperature is a key factor in the health of many aquatic organisms, and better, broader, and faster delivery of water temperature data can inform reservoir releases and help anglers decide when to fish. New temperature sensors were added to 98 locations in the DRB.
Personally, I like the play on words here. She is right that they are woven in a way where the descriptors aren't being applied to the same thing, but I think that is intentional and part of what makes it cool. We may get push-back from others too, but I like it.
jordansread
commented
4 years ago For temperature (Brook Trout in particular)
Fall spawners need a cool temperature signal for spawning. Historically this corresponds with a certain time of year (e.g., November). The eggs lay there all winter and physiologically need cold temperatures to develop properly I am no expert on fish egg physiology, but there is a theory that if they don't get properly exposed to cold temperatures they don't develop right and either don't hatch, hatch at the wrong time etc.
me: and the "wrong time" for hatching means predation and/or food timing is bad (in general)?
Yeah. Probably more likely is they don't develop properly, hatching success is low, they are too small, sex ratio is skewed...
some other temperature options:
I would add something about brook trout can't compete well with non-native trout with warmer preferences (e.g., brown trout) so when water gets warmer (even though still technically ok for brookies) they generally get pushed out by browns They thrive in the super cold water where the Browns can't live
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Cool! What about this for the trout section:
For example, brook trout are the only native trout species within the Basin. In the fall, trout need a cool temperature to signal the beginning of their reproductive cycle. Historically, this corresponds with a certain time of year, usually November. With the right temperature cue, the spawning males develop vibrant red colors and pink-and-blue spots all over their bodies. Then females dig a nest in a gravel streambed with cold water, and once the egg are fertilized the mating pair bury the nest for protection. The eggs remain unhatched all winter and require the cool water to develop properly.
Warmer water temperatures are bad news for Brookies even outside of the reproductive cycle. Brookies can survive in warmer waters than they like, but they can’t compete well with non-native Brown trout.The warm water reduces growth rates and can make trout more susceptible to diseases. Brookies instead thrive in river reaches with super cold water where the Brown trout can’t survive.
jordansread
commented
4 years ago I like the variety of temperature impacts and more connection to the color change, but wondering what problem we're addressing with the new text. Is it missing a "so what?". I'm inferring here, but I think what you are getting at is that it doesn't fully explain the visual. I would agree with you there, but want to make sure the charge for the edits are clear.
Here is what I see on beta which I don't think includes the sentence the reviewer took issue with
Brook trout are the only native trout species within the DRB and prefer cold water temperatures. For brook trout, fall water temperatures are an important environmental cue to initiate the reproductive cycle. Trout can also be negatively impacted when water temperatures are too high in other seasons, as warming reduces growth rates and can make trout more susceptible to diseases.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Exactly right, I'm trying to explain the visual by explaining the science. Or the reverse - explain the science with big help from the visual. Why is the trout changing color in this animation? Why does it wiggle? Why does it have spots? Why does temperature impact them? All those are built into the visual, but readers don't know that those parts of the visual are actually reflections of the science. Does that make sense?
jordansread
commented
4 years ago Totally, it makes sense, yes. And I'm with you - we need to modify that text to fit the visual. But is this related to the IPDS reviews (this issue) or a separate issue/need?
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago I just got off an extended call - fortunately, the two of you seem to be making great progress without my help. In fact, I haven't yet spotted any Must-Address issues that you haven't already made progress on...are there any?
One thought on the title is that tomorrow's demo probably isn't the place to workshop words. If Brian et al. really want to iterate on text with us, let's do that via email or even in a separate, later meeting if email isn't working.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago @jread-usgs I see them as intertwined - in that, I agree with the reviewers comments. So, yes and yes? With more weight on my own issue/need to make sure our text and visuals support each other.
@aappling-usgs No worries! The part I still feel the least confident on is the conclusion - I haven't spent a ton of time on it, though I certainly will return tomorrow morning with fresh eyes. I'd say if you have a few moments to give those last few paragraphs a real conclusion-y polish, I would really appreciate it! But not a problem if you don't have time.
aappling-usgs
commented
4 years ago I gave the conclusion a try - see what you think.
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago Looking great. Thank you Alison!
Very excited to hear what the feedback is from demo. In the meantime, we've received the review from Jack, which I'm pasting here and uploading to all the right places. Generally his thoughts are:
This looks great, especially now that I can see it in the Beta version. A copy of the Word doc with my comments is attached.
My comments are all "Nice to Have", but taken together are a "Must Have" to simplify wording. The audience for this is the public, but much of the wording will only be familiar to water scientists.
Good Luck, I'm glad you are putting this out - just the sort of communication we need. Jack
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago I'm jumping back in here to wrap up IPDS. I've got responses written to Jack, and a list of his recommended/must-have edits that I think are a good idea here. Below that is summary of comments from Joe Nielsen. Any red flags from project champions?
Most recent iteration of text, incorporating Jack and Joe's comments
Must-Haves
Nice-to-Haves
Must-Haves
Nice-To-Haves
@aappling-usgs or @jread-usgs, I know you both have busy weeks, but when you get a chance would you mind just going through the IPDS platform one last time with me to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed?
ellenbechtel
commented
4 years ago I've done what is hopefully the last pass through the DRB story text with the following intentions:
I think it's great.
Kendra Russel has submitted edits on an old version of the text, and while I don't want to spin open another round of text edits, I would like to make sure she has buy-in and that her concerns get addressed. I'm copying two comments that stood out to me to flag them as things I'd like to talk about, so that we can address them or respond to them.
Old Original Text: While these natural variations usually pose no problems, sea level rise is expected to push the salt front so far inland – especially during droughts – that water at the major Trenton, NJ intake could be contaminated . Salty water corrodes surface water intake pipes, raises the cost of drinking water treatment, and is potentially toxic to many aquatic plants and fish.
Monitoring, modeling, and management of river flows are essential to our peaceful coexistence with the salt front. Remember the Supreme-Court-mandated flow targets at Montague and Trenton ? One key motivation for setting the targets where they are is to keep pressing the salt front toward the ocean. Maintaining the target flow is an important tool for protecting our current uses of freshwater in the lower Basin. Accurate data and models allow smart timing of reservoir releases to maintain the flow targets and the salt front location.
Kendra's Comment on Old/Original: "Maybe should discuss this (second) paragraph similar to (the one) above. There is also a touchy subject."
Latest Text, Edited before reading Kendra's Comment:
How Monitoring and Flow Management Help Monitoring, modeling, and management of river flows are essential to our peaceful coexistence with the salt front. One key motivation for the 1954 Supreme Court decree to set the flow targets is to keep enough freshwater flowing down the Delaware River to press the salt front back toward the ocean.
Maintaining the target flow is an important tool for protecting our current uses of freshwater in the lower Basin. Accurate data and models allow smart timing of reservoir releases to maintain the flow targets and the salt front location.
Old Original Text: Warmer water temperatures are bad news for Brookies even outside of the reproductive cycle. Brookies can survive in warmer waters than they like, but they can’t compete well with non-native Brown trout.The warm water reduces growth rates and can make trout more susceptible to diseases. Brookies instead thrive in river reaches with super cold water where the Brown trout can’t survive.
Kendra's Comment on Old/Original: "i haven't heard this as a particular DRB issue (non native taking over for natives) - have you seen that raised? i've mostly seen the concern that high temps are fatal."
Latest Text, Edited before reading Kendra's Comment: Warming water temperature is bad news for brookies even outside of the reproductive cycle. Brookies can certainly survive in warmer waters, but they grow more slowly and are more susceptible to disease, meaning that they can’t compete well with non-native Brown trout. They instead thrive in river reaches with very cold water where the Brown trout can’t survive at all.
ellenbechtel
commented
3 years ago Last thing, we need a confirmed authorship list. How about this, in order (which is also listed in the index.html of the viz page):
"contributor": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jordan Read", "email": "jread@usgs.gov", "affiliation": { "@type": "Organization", "legalName": "U.S. Geological Survey" } }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alison Appling", "email": "aappling@usgs.gov", "affiliation": { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "legalName": "U.S. Geological Survey" } }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alicia Rhoades", "email": "arhoades@usgs.gov", "affiliation": { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "legalName": "U.S. Geological Survey" } }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Colleen Nell", "email": "cnell@usgs.gov", "affiliation": { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "legalName": "U.S. Geological Survey" } }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ellen Bechtel", "email": "ebechtel@contractor.usgs.gov", "affiliation": { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "legalName": "U.S. Geological Survey" } }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Aaron Briggs", "email": "abriggs@contractor.usgs.gov", "affiliation": { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "legalName": "U.S. Geological Survey" } }] },
Version Control!
NB: Always edit this document as the master - the central point of truth.
Other versions, in chronological order (most recent at bottom) AA and JR original, with notes embedded
Meg Shoda's comments Response to Meg
Jack Eggelston's comments Response to Jack
Joe Nielsen's comments
From Team's channel
IPDS: Jordan and I are happy to consult on how to get through the process. To be clear, we are expecting that the team will take point on actually contacting reviewers to request reviews, getting the e-paper trail onto the IPDS website, and responding to reviews.
Whoever is on point really should have a conversation with one of us to get all the details, but the basics are
[x] you need to email 2+ individuals to request the review (this can be initiated before you have something to send them, just to get their agreement) "Would you be able to review product X by date Y if we gave you access on Monday?" and make sure we've got two reviewers
[ ] the review itself can take place as comments on a Word document that you provide (this would be the text+stills that JR mentioned) but would very likely also involve a reviewer looking at the beta website
the e-paperwork involves
[ ] (1) responding in writing to the document comments,
[x] (2) filling in a bunch of forms that Jordan or I can walk someone through, and
[ ] (3) uploading the pre-commented, commented, and responded-to documents, and
[ ] (4) following up with a few additional button pushes, and
[ ] possibly some interaction with a Bureau Approving Official (BAO), for final approval before the release and then
[ ] marking the item as "disseminated" once it's released