Ashley Tseng

Ashley worked with us for two whole summers, one summer in SF, and one summer in NYC. She ran one of our most successful Challenges the Seabird Challenge, and continued on during school to run our Public Health Challenge. Her day-to-day role at Experiment was reviewing proposals and answering support tickets.

Heather Kopsco

Heather first used Experiment as a researcher for her lyme disease research during her. She then contributed as a Grant Officer for our Wildlife Disease Challenge. Heather is an Adjunct Professor at Roger Williams University and finishing her PhD at the University of Rhode Island. We first met when she was in the middle of her Master's at Montclair State University.

My opinion it it seemed Heather was in a rush. It seemed like she was quick to judge items in the review and may have been stressed. She was not relaxed. This is something to note because I think a lot of reviewers will be in the state of being stressed.

Feedback:

jellyfish project

• noticed spelling errors right away in the 'eligibility' section and wanted to edit, unclear what she should do on 'eligibility' stage, wanted to start reviewing
• wanted to reject because of grammatical errors and punctuation errors, it seemed she wanted to reject it because it appears like the researcher didn't take the time to proofread.
• wanted to send back a project because it is not concise
• when asked if she wants to give separate comments to the researcher vs. staff she said "i don't think there should be different comments necessarily"
• she was concerned that a researcher may not make changes and continue to submit the proposal and at that stage she suggests allowing the researcher to flag the project so that staff can reach out and assist them

walking catfish

• she criticized the project and wanted it to be more formal. she felt the project was too casual. we did not ask her to review for this, so this seems like an assumption she already had about what a "scientific proposal" should look like
• requested changed on the title because it didn't include the species name
• on the basics section there was a bug showing the section is approved when she clearly requested chagnes
• it was not clear to her that a single section could have 2+ parts
• she was very strict about asking researchers to use literature to back up claims
• when reading the goals, she wanted to know when the project concluded, there was no set time in the goals, but she later realized it was in the timeline. move timeline up higher.