Spin paper accepted
Just a quick notice that our spin correlations paper was accepted by the Monthly Notices of Royal Astronomical Society (where all Galaxy Zoo papers go)
Galaxy Zoo Paper update
With so many fabulous results working their way through the system, you’d be forgiven for losing track of exactly what’s happening with the Galaxy Zoo papers, so I thought a quick update was in order.First of all, the 5th Galaxy Zoo paper has been submitted, presenting the initial results of our study of Hanny’s Voorwerp; one simple question on the forum has led to a paper with 19 authors, from 14 different institutions.
We’ve already had a first response from the referee, who told us that we needed to be more careful with some of the results we were reporting; we’ve corrected our missteps, and it’ll go back to the journal today. We also had a referee’s response to Steven’s paper, and will let you know more when we can.Various other papers are in the works; in the last week or so I’ve spent a lot of time arguing over the mergers sample, taking a closer look at rings and having my first look at Anze’s work on rotating spirals. Plenty more work to do, and plenty more news to tell you about as we continue to make the most of all your hard work.Chris
Third Galaxy Zoo paper submitted

Update : Paper now available.
It has taken over six months and a lot of work, but we have finally decided the third Galaxy Zoo paper is ready for submission to a scientific journal, and to be made public. The paper was already in reasonably good shape a month or so ago, but given the number of interesting results it contains, we wanted to be sure the presentation is as clear as we can make it. We therefore had yet another round of internal review by the coauthors, and elicited comments from a couple of other colleagues with links to the project. The response was very helpful and encouraging, so I decided to take a bit more time to improve the analysis further and perform some extra tests. We’ve now got a paper we are all really pleased with. We hope that all of you, and the journal referee, agree with us!
The paper is long, 30 pages in total. Even so, we’ve tried to make the paper as readable as possible by shifting some of the material to appendices (additional sections at the end of the paper). Much of the length of the paper is due to the large number of figures. Again though, we’ve tried to make these easier to absorb by combined multiple plots into single figures and maintaining a consistent style.
The paper has been submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS), one of the world’s principal astronomy journals, and the same publication that the two previous Galaxy Zoo papers (by Kate and Chris) have been submitted to. The paper will now go for peer review. Hopefully we will have the referee’s comments back in a month or so, then there will probably be a few changes to make before it is accepted by the journal and published. As this process takes so long, and this work is so timely, we have decided to make the paper public before it is accepted by MNRAS, so other researchers can see our work as soon as possible. The paper has therefore been added to the astro-ph archive. It will be available for anyone to read from Tuesday 3rd June.
I’m taking a break for a fortnight, but then I’ll write a few blog posts, following on from this one, explaining all the results of the paper in less technical terms.
Update : Paper now available.
What happens next… Peer Review
With the first Galaxy Zoo paper submitted (kudos to Kate and Anze!), we’d like to describe to you what happens next. What’s scientific publishing all about? How does it work? If you’ve followed the blog and the forum, you have a pretty good idea of the first part of the scientific process: discovery!
We set out on the Galaxy Zoo project in part to test whether spiral galaxies in different parts of the sky somehow have spins that align, as has been claimed by earlier work. Kate and Anze have commented on the motivation for this work and blogged about how we did find an effect, were startled by it and so started the bias test to understand it. Kate and Anze used the bias test data to show conclusively that in the case of Galaxy Zoo it was an effect with the observers and that the universe isn’t mad.
This is one of the amazing and unique things about science. Good scientists spend most of their time arguing against the effects they see in their own data, to avoid falling into traps of seeing only what they expect to see. To see how unique and amazing this is, try to imagine a politician arguing against a piece of legislation s/he is sponsoring! This process of double, triple, and quadruple-checking one’s own work is a very important part of science.
Once we were convinced that we really understood what is going on, we could then write up our conclusions in the form of a scientific paper. Steven wrote here about the process of writing a paper; Kate went through the same process Steven described. Over the past few weeks, she passed her paper around to the rest of the Galaxy Zoo team for comments. Kate’s paper has thus passed through the first check — her own examination of her results — and the second — amongst the team itself.
The next step in scientific research is to submit the paper to a journal. This has now happened, and the paper Land et al. (2008) (where “et al.” means “and the rest,” including YOU!!) has been submitted to the top UK journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS).
The editor of this journal will now select an anonymous referee who can comment on the scientific and technical merits of the paper. The referee is another astronomer or cosmologist whom the editor can ask for an expert assessment of the work. He or she will have a few weeks to read it, think about it, and then make a number of recommendations to the editor of the journal. There are three options. The referee can reject the paper outright. This generally happens very rarely, except in highly competitive top journals like Nature and Science. They can support publication of the paper, asking for only a few minor modifications. This also happens quite rarely, though! The most common outcome is for her to write a “referee report,” suggesting a number of modifications and ask for clarifications. The referee might have questions about some part of the analysis, suggest some alternative thoughts and ideas, or criticise the methodology. Sometimes referees can be hostile to a paper; but often, they are genuinely helpful and constructive.
After receiving the report, we get a few weeks to digest it and modify the paper according to the referee’s comments, and argue against the points raised that we disagree with. This process may repeat itself a number of times if the referee isn’t happy with our modifications, and so it can often take weeks and months for a paper to get to a decision by the editor (acceptance or rejection). If a referee is being particularly unreasonable, we can write to the editor requesting a new referee. In extreme circumstances, we could even choose to submit the paper to a different journal and hope for a more reasonable referee.
The whole process is generally known as peer review since the referee is a peer — a fellow scientist and expert in the field. If the paper is accepted, it will appear both in the online and print version of the journal after another few weeks or months. A paper accepted in such a journal is then considered peer-reviewed.
So, if Kate’s paper hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed why is the paper already “public”? It’s general practice in astrophysics to post papers as preprints on a web server called astro-ph. Astro-ph is updated daily to make all papers publicly accessible for anyone. Most people post their papers there when they submit them to journals so they are available immediately. Some wait till the paper is accepted. Thus, not everything on astro-ph is peer-reviewed! In fact, in cosmology, some like to submit preprints to astro-ph before submitting so to allow the community to comment before the draft is submitted to a journal.
It’s important to note that something said in a “peer-reviewed” paper isn’t necessarily true. The point of peer-review is to weed out obviously flawed paper whose logic has holes or whose data don’t support the conclusion. Knowing that a paper has been peer-reviewed should give you extra confidence that its results are believable – that means that an expert in the field has read through the paper and thinks its conclusions are believable.It’s really just the first step of proper “peer-review,” because the process continues. As the community of astrophysicists digests the paper, they too pass judgement on whetherthey consider the paper important and whether they believe the conclusion. Thus, in the years after publication, other astrophysicists might deem Land et al. (2008) a key paper and cite it in the future, commenting on it positively. Or they might disagree with it, but that would still be a sign that it was important enough to comment on. Or it might just fade into obscurity if astronomers don’t consider it important. That’s the historical legacy of a paper – and that’s the ultimate peer-review.
First paper submitted
It’s taken more or less a whole year to get to this point, but I’m very proud to announce that the first Galaxy Zoo paper has been submitted to the journal, the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society or MNRAS as it’s known to its friends. Congratulations to Kate for getting us to this point, and fingers crossed that the referee will be kind to us.

It’s become increasingly common in recent years – particularly in cosmology – to make papers public even at this early stage. This is usually done via the central astro-ph server, so expect to see the paper here in the next day or so. Thanks to all Galaxy Zoo members for the careful classifying which made this possible – there’s lots more to follow.
Update: Here it is.
Reading the drafts
As Steven mentioned in his post last Friday, we are hard at work on the first round of papers from Galaxy Zoo. Back when we started this blog, Chris listed the four papers that we expect to come out in the first round. To review them:
1) A paper summarizing the structure of Galaxy Zoo, with details of how we turn your clicks into a catalog of galaxies. Chris is the first author on this one, and Anze talked here on the blog about how we got our catalog of galaxies. Chris’s talk at the AAS meeting also gives a good introduction to what is likely to go in this paper.
2) A paper about the relationship between what a galaxy looks like and where it lives. Steven is the first author on this one, and he wrote about the results very clearly here.
3) A paper about the unusual “blue ellipticals” that you found. Kevin is the first author on that one, and he wrote about it here, with lots of really nice sample images.
4) A paper examining the structure of the universe by studying the rotation direction of galaxies. Kate is the first author on this one, and Anze is working closely with her. She wrote about the reasons for the study on the forum, and her paper will also include the results of the bias study. The bias study showed that the apparent excess of anti-clockwise galaxies seems to be a result of people’s perception of galaxies on the site, rather than any feature of the galaxies themselves or our position relative to them. We actually never expected to find any excess – and often in science, disproving a result is just as important as finding a new result.
Steven’s post Friday did a great job of describing what goes on in writing a scientific paper. Here, I’ll talk about what it’s like to read over a paper and provide comments to the first author.
The results so far have been really interesting, and it’s been a lot of fun to see them written down. I looked through Chris’s paper in detail, since I know a good deal about the process by which we created Galaxy Zoo, and the SDSS data on that Galaxy Zoo uses. I know less about the astronomy, so I’ve just skimmed through Steven and Kate’s paper. I haven’t seen Kevin’s yet.
We’ve been exchanging drafts of the papers as PDFs, then sending comments back to the first authors by E-mail. I’ve been reading along and making notes as I go. I’m trying to make sure that everything would make sense to an astronomer who hadn’t worked with Galaxy Zoo before.
One of the most important parts of any scientific paper is the figures. The old statement that “a picture is worth a thousand words” is definitely true in science, but in this case the pictures are usually plots of data. I’m checking over the figures to make sure the x and y axes are clearly labeled and the figure caption makes sense. A lot of readers read the figures first, then come back to the text, so the figure captions should make sense when read apart from the paper. The way that figures can depict scientific data is quite interesting, and creating figures for professional astronomers is frequently quite a different visual style from creating figures for the public.
The last section of any science paper is the References – the previous papers that this paper builds on. Any assertion that you make in a paper should either be a direct result of your study, blindingly obvious, or referenced in a standard style. So, when Chris talked about how images from Galaxy Zoo were generated, I sent him a reference on how we take individual black-and-white images in different wavelengths and combine them into a color image.
Do galaxies care where they live?
Does where we live make a difference to the kind of person we are? This is a question that has been addressed many times by social scientists, and certainly with more refined thought than the following example, but it will serve our purposes.
Consider one person, Victor, living in a small countryside village, and another, Claire, who lives in the centre of a city. The nearest shops to Victor are many miles away. When he has a sudden biscuit craving and opens the cupboard to find, to his horror, that his wife finished off the last packet the previous evening, it is a great effort for him to travel to the shops to get another. Claire, on the other hand, has merely to stroll to the corner of her road to satisfy her craving for something crunchy. However, while Claire often finds herself nipping out for a packet of biscuits, Victor rarely has the need. He always makes sure he buys plenty of biscuits on his regular weekly shopping trip, and there is always the packet hidden at the back of the other cupboard that his wife hasn’t noticed. Victor is very organised, while Claire clearly isn’t, at least when it comes to biscuits. Does this have anything to do with where they live?
Of course, biscuit buying habits, although important, aren’t the only thing one can say about an individual. Each person is complex and unique, imperfectly describable even by a very large number of personality traits. However, there are simple and obvious ways of crudely dividing up the population. Although we have so far confined ourselves to biscuits, the chances are that Victor is generally more organised than Claire. Perhaps there is a way of dividing people into groups by how organised they are. I’ve no idea, but there are small number of general personality traits, like introvert and extrovert, that describe how many specific personality traits tend to group together, such that you can give reasonably good description of someone by just a few words.
By now you are sure to be wondering what the hell this has got to do with galaxies. Well, to date there has been very little research into the biscuit hoarding characteristics of different galaxies, but like people, galaxies are extremely complex objects. There are so many processes simultaneously going on inside them that we just can’t fully describe each one, never mind understand how those processes go towards forming the properties of the individual as a whole. However, one thing about galaxies, that you can’t help noticing when you’ve looked at a enough of them, is how cleanly they can be split into two different types: spirals and ellipticals. Spirals are, at least in some respects, very organised. Most of their stars are travelling in circles around the galaxy centre in an ordered manner. Ellipticals, on the other hand, are in disarray. Their stars move around on many different, random orbits. (It is interesting how the appearance of order, a nice smooth elliptical galaxy, appears when many unorganised things happen at once, but that is a whole other topic.)

We’ve made the distinction between spirals and ellipticals completely obvious in Galaxy Zoo by only giving you those two options, along with “star/don’t know”. Even so, if we’d just sat each of you at a table with a pile of galaxy pictures to sort, without giving you any instructions about how to do it, most of you would probably have arrived at the same way of dividing them up. Those of you who value simplicity would have formed two or three piles. The pickier ones amongst you would probably be surrounded by lots of neat little stacks, containing galaxies with two sprawling spiral arms, with many tightly wound arms, big blobs, small blobs, red, blue, and so on. Nevertheless, the main distinction, the difference between all the galaxies on your left and those on your right, would probably be whether they possess a disk, often containing spiral arms, or whether they are just a big, smooth elliptical.
Of course, as many of you will have noticed, not all galaxies do fit into a nice category. So, as well as your stacks of spirals and ellipticals, you would be likely to have a collection of weird objects. However, these only form a small fraction of the whole population of galaxies. Whether you choose to hide your pile of odd galaxies away to one side, or display it smack right in front of you, again depends on your character. The projects examining blue ellipticals or Hanny’s Voorwerp belong to the latter class – confronting the occasional odd object to see what secrets it can tell us. The analysis I have been working on has more of the former character: as most objects are elliptical or spiral, let’s ignore the few weird ones and study how the majority behaves. One problem with working with the majority is that this is very many objects, hundreds of thousands of galaxies. To analyse a dataset this large we have to use statistics, for example we consider the fraction of objects that are elliptical, and how that changes when we only look at galaxies with certain properties.
If you did the galaxy sorting exercise described above you would be reproducing work performed by many astronomers over the past ninety years, including Hubble, de Vaucouleurs and Sandange. This subject is called morphology, literally the study of the ‘forms’ that galaxies take. Strictly morphology doesn’t include a description of the colours of galaxies, but rather their shape or appearance in greyscale.
The distinction between spirals and ellipticals was noted even before it was fully accepted that these objects reside outside our own galaxy. It was also noticed, almost immediately, that spirals and ellipticals are distributed differently on the sky. They all tend to cluster together in groups, rather than being evenly or randomly arranged, but ellipticals cluster much more strongly than spirals. Ellipticals live in galaxy cities, alongside many others, whereas spirals prefer the villages and isolation of the cosmos’ countryside.
To use more scientific language, ellipticals are concentrated in high density regions, where many galaxies are located in a small volume of space. Spirals, on the other hand, are usually found in low density environments, where galaxies are separated from others by large distances. As mentioned earlier, the dependence of galaxy morphology on the density of surrounding galaxies was noticed early in the 20th century. However, it wasn’t until the 1980’s that it was well quantified in two landmark papers by Dressler (1980), looking specifically at large galaxy clusters, and Postman and Geller (1984), who extended the relationships to lower density environments around clusters and smaller groups. These studies tried to classify galaxies as ellipticals, spirals, or lenticulars. This last type is a galaxy morphology somewhere between a spiral and an elliptical: with a disk, but with no spiral arms. Lenticulars are tricky to classify, and so in Galaxy Zoo so far we haven’t asked the classifiers to try and identify them. Galaxy Zoo “ellipticals” will contain normal ellipticals, and most of the lenticulars. This issue will be discussed more in future posts.
This figure shows the morphology-density relation from Postman and Geller (1984) and Dressler (1980), based on around 9000 galaxies. The lines show the fraction of ellipticals (red), lenticulars (orange), and ellipticals + lenticulars (purple) versus a measurement of local density. The different lines of the same colour just indicate three different sources. You can see that as local density increases, going from left to right in the figure, the fraction of ellipticals and lenticulars increases.
With the latest Galaxy Zoo data provided to me by Anze, I set to work analysing how a galaxy’s morphology depends on the environment it lives in. The initial thing I had to do was carefully measure and correct for any biases in the morphological classifications. This in itself is interesting, although it tells us more about people and the telescope than about galaxies, so I won’t discuss it further here. The next thing to do was to find out about the environments of the galaxies – specifically the local galaxy density. These were kindly provided by Ivan Baldry, an astronomer at Liverpool John Moores University who has done lots of work on the variation of galaxy colours with environment.
When I had my corrected dataset, with measurements of environment added in, the first thing I looked at was the relationship between the fraction of galaxies that are elliptical and local galaxy density.
This figure shows the morphology-density relation for nearby galaxies from Galaxy Zoo, based on 100733 objects. The light shading indicates the very small uncertainties on the relation.
It is difficult to directly compare the Galaxy Zoo morphology-density relation with that by Postman & Geller (1984) shown further above. This is because the local density was measured in a different way, and they include lenticular galaxies separately. However, it is easy to see that the overall behaviour is the same. In regions of high density the fraction of elliptical galaxies increases. The Galaxy Zoo relation is much more accurate, as it is based on more than ten times the number of galaxies, and very clearly defined, which will enable future studies and models to easily compare with it. It shows clearly that morphology depends smoothly on local galaxy density over all environments. Even in the lowest density regions there is some dependence.
Now is a good time to think back to Victor and Claire. Like Victor, organised spiral galaxies tend to live in areas of low density. Disorganised ellipticals are found where many galaxies cluster together, somewhat comparable to the city Claire lives in. But is Victor organised because he lives in such an isolated place, and is forced to be; or is he just an intrinsically organised person, and so living in the countryside didn’t seem such a problem? Likewise, is Claire disorganised because of where she lives? Do the plethora of nearby shops make biscuit hoarding unnecessary? Or is she simply a disorganised person, and so chose to live in the city to avoid having to be organised? If Victor moved to the city, would be become more disorganised? Would the place he lives change his personality?
Obviously galaxies don’t choose where they live, in the sense that Victor and Claire can, but the analogy is still strong. Are there more ellipticals in clusters because that’s where ellipticals happen to be, or because something about where they live has turned them into ellipticals? If otherwise identical galaxies form in areas of different densities, would they be the same, or is there something happening in dense regions that changes galaxies into ellipticals? Maybe something about dense regions turns organised galaxies into disorganised ones.
One of the powers of Galaxy Zoo is the staggering number of galaxies we have data for. It is possible to divide up our sample by a variety of galaxy properties, such as their mass and colour, and still have enough galaxies in each slice to see how environment affects that particular subsample. Each of these different properties tells us something different about a galaxy, and enables us to go someway to disentangling their intrinsic properties from recent changes. I’ll discuss the things we’ve learned by doing this in future posts.


