SPACETRC / MAKE SCIENCE TOGETHER
Start with a question.
Investigate together.
Plan a research season, teacher-led cohort or reproducibility clinic. Keep a journal and revisions, then improve the work with feedback from a separate account.
A bounded question, an explicit protocol.
Write sampling, sources and acceptance criteria before the study. The first worksheet helps prepare land-cover validation in Istanbul.
Six or eight weeks of inquiry.
Weekly outputs, a four-domain rubric, self-assessment and a dated journal. Revise an assignment as a separate record.
Examine a method together.
Choose a paper or data package. Plan speaker confirmation, reproduction steps and the session output.
This workspace prepares programmes. An actual pilot starts separately once a responsible investigator, independent reference and participation arrangements are established. Use aliases in place of student names or sensitive locations and limit sharing to people who need it.
WORKING FILE
Prepare, examine and revise.
The example is not a completed map evaluation in Istanbul. Real reference data and an investigator team have not been assigned to this draft.
Self-assessment · 0–3
0: not yet · 1: first draft · 2: supported by a source · 3: repeatable by someone else. Scores are self-reported, not independent achievement measurement or accreditation.
| Domain | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Research question | ||
| Sources and data provenance | ||
| Method and reproduction | ||
| Limits and uncertainty |
Journal dates and scores are your entries. Account saving also retains the server’s actual save time.
After revision, reopen the same record and save a new version. The previous version and its feedback remain in the review history.
ACCOUNT-BOUND PRIVATE WORK
A real record, a current version, explicit access choices.
Account saving makes only the current form a private record. Team and separate-reviewer access are optional; saving creates no public programme, research result, event or archive publication.
Feedback on the current version assigned to me
This is educational or methodological feedback. It does not create academic peer review, institutional approval or credential verification.
What makes a study stronger?
Question and criteria come first.
Record target population, data separation, metrics and uncertainty rules before seeing the result. A preparation checklist does not measure scientific validity.
Feedback binds to content.
A new version changes the context of earlier comments. Old feedback remains in history and is not shown as current approval.
Reproduction is a useful outcome.
Make another person’s reproduction from the same sources and steps, detected errors and corrections visible. Visit counts are not scientific findings.
- Zooniverse · research project roles and workflow
- NASA · citizen science researcher resources
- ESA Climate Detectives · investigation method
- Zenodo · actual deposit and DOI steps
Sources are methodological examples, not a declaration of institutional partnership or programme acceptance. ESA education eligibility depends on the relevant country/institution rules.