Hi, is it this morning ? It seems there is nobody in the zoom meeting 
Should have been, but Amelia had to cancel at the last minute. You did not know because you were not attached to the calendar invitation. Sorry! We moved it to today, 10.30 Brussels time, at Launch Meeting - Zoom
oups, I had no possibility to attend this one 
I don’t know if there will be a summary
Summary of our call:
- We migrate our paper back to Overleaf.
- Careful, we are approaching the limit of 6,000 words. LATEX does not have a native word count facility, but there are workarounds.
- We make the necessary edits to it. Tasks are allocated here. @melancon to take care of drafting section 2 based on the Google Doc. Instructions on the doc itself.
- Alberto to initiate a LATEX doc for the response to reviewers.
- Deadline: November 26th. A third call is scheduled for that day at 17.00 Brussels time, on Launch Meeting - Zoom
1 Like
@amelia @melancon @markomanka I am now done with the first round of corrections. I also started the Overleaf document for the letter to the reviewers. It already contains discussion of the changes I made to the new version of the paper.
1 Like
Forgot to say: there are some fundamental issues from reviewer 3 that are not assigned to anyone! I made some edits to the original reviewers annotated wiki.
Hey everyone, are we on for the call tomorrow? @alberto @markomanka @melancon (and @tah)
I’m ill but in the interests of keeping this ball rolling I’m happy to keep the time. I’m still working on my stuff but should have content for you to read and edit by Tuesday night (I literally don’t have time to be ill right now! It’s the last week of term crazies here…).
Yes. Barring flight delays, I should be able to make it with ease.
1 Like
Update from me (and a way for me to keep track of what still needs to be done):
I have written my sections and resolved the edits assigned to me alone.
To be worked on:
- Look closer at the Bernard and Wutich handbook (if accessible) to make sure coverage is total
- format citations
- Go over the walkthrough and make sure explanations are clear and thorough (And potentially add the explanations of the unconnected nodes requested by one of the reviewers. If adding that, keep it short.)
1 Like
@alberto @amelia @markomanka @jason_vallet
Following what we agreed on, I edited section 2.2 and was able to compress it by 23% (target was 25%).
Note: before editing I went through the version history and added a label (I edited using an external editor).
I’ll keep working on the other sections.
Hope you all enjoy sharing capitalistic XMas and eating too much with your family just as I do here in Montreal.
We are still at 7,217… happy Xmas to you!
Hi all— the submission guidelines for the paper instruct us to use the American Sociological Association’s style guide. This means we need parenthetical citations. For example:
Responding to Murthy’s (2008) call for ‘multimodal ethnography’ which integrates anthropological participant-observation with digital research methods, our method is an ethnographic method which maps online conversations around a specific topic to better understand and visualise what communities collectively think about and find important (Dicks et al 2006).
Can we instruct Overleaf to format like this, or do we need to do it by hand?
Def possible with LATEX. It looks like Overleaf uses a package called Natbib: Natbib citation styles - Overleaf, Online LaTeX Editor
However, I tried
\usepackage{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{apastyle}
\setcitestyle{authoryear,open={(},close={)}}
But it does not work, it tells me that there is a natbib error.
In theory, you could also use the \citep{} command with natbib, but in practice I cannot make it work.
@melancon, can you help? You are the LATEX expert.
Also, what’s the most effective/accurate way to do a word count?
I am trusting the word counter of Overleaf. Click on “project”, then select the “Word count” tab.
We are now at 6,724.
Ace! I just finished my first cut. 720 left is not bad at all.
But @markomanka , is the ethics in yet?
1 Like
Reminder also that the journal explicitly requests limiting the passive voice — so use those active voices and use “we”!
NO: Coding was done on the dataset
YES: We coded the dataset
Welcome to the anthro side, where all knowledge comes from somewhere 
Now at 6500 words!
Ok, so I succeeded with natbib. However, now we do need to re-read the whole thing, because I am used to citing with no punctuation at all. Example:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in
communication and meaning-making \cite{Rheingold2000}, we demonstrate how to
perform ethnography which generates codes that can be analyzed in network form
\cite{Burrell2009}.
Used to become:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in communication and meaning-making [1], we demonstrate how to perform ethnography which generates codes that can be analyzed in network form [2].
But now, using the authoryear citation style with natbib, it becomes:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in communication and meaning-making Rheingold (2000), we demonstrate how to perform ethnography which generates codes that can be analyzed in network form Burrell (2009).
Which makes no sense. To correct for this, we have to cite using the \citep{} command. Like this:
Treating conversation platforms as virtual communities in which humans are engaged in communication
and meaning-making \citep{Rheingold2000}, we demonstrate how to perform ethnography which generates
codes that can be analyzed in network form \citep{Burrell2009}.
Sounds good-- thanks for taking care of that! We’ll have to go through and reformat slightly then, but that’s much preferable than having to do it by hand. Do I have the time for the call right? I’m on zoom.