On the Reproducibility of Science
•
0 likes•1,212 views
Melissa Haendel March 18, 2013 Beyond the PDF2 - Amsterdam, NL Science, Publishing, Open Access
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to On the Reproducibility of Science
Similar to On the Reproducibility of Science (20)
More from Neuroscience Information Framework
More from Neuroscience Information Framework (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
On the Reproducibility of Science
- 1. On the reproducibility of science Melissa Haendel Beyond the PDF2 20 March 2013 @ontowonka haendel@ohsu.edu
- 2. Do we know if the infrastructure is actually broken? Slide from Gully Burns The science cycle
- 3. This is a broken data story. The science cycle Image: h6p://www.joinchangena=on.org/blog/post/roadblocks-‐on-‐the-‐pathway-‐to-‐ci=zenship
- 4. Journal guidelines for methods are often poor and space is limited “All companies from which materials were obtained should be listed.” -‐ A well-‐known journal Reproducibility is dependent at a minimum, on using the same resources. But…
- 5. Hypothesis: AnAbodies in the published literature are not uniquely idenAfiable An experiment in reproducibility Gather journal ar=cles 5 domains: Immunology Cell biology Neuroscience Developmental biology General biology 3 impact factors: High Medium Low 28 Journals 119 papers 454 an=bodies 408 commercial an=bodies 46 non-‐commercial an=bodies Iden=fying ques=ons: Is the an=body iden=fiable in the vendor site? Is the catalog number reported? Is the source organism reported? Is the an=body target iden=fiable?
- 6. The data shows… Approximately half of anAbodies are not uniquely idenAfiable in 119 publicaAons Percent idenAfiable 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Commercial an=body Non-‐commerical an=body n=408 n=46
- 7. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Immunology Neuroscience Dev Bio Cell Bio General Bio High Medium Low Percent iden=fiable n=124 n=94 n=87 n=95 n=56 Unique idenAficaAon of commercial anAbodies varies across discipline and impact factor In some domains high impact journals have worse reporting, and in others it is the opposite
- 8. Maybe labs are just disorganized?
- 9. Meet the Urban Lab
- 10. Meet the Urban Lab Image: Gourami Watcher
- 11. A+ organization! The Urban lab anAbodies
- 12. Of 14 antibodies published in 45 articles, only 38% were identifiable 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Commerical Ab iden=fiable Non-‐commercial Ab iden=fiable Catalog number reported Source organism reported Target uniquely iden=fiable Percent idenAfiable
- 13. What does this tell us?
- 14. Scientists really do put their data in cardboard boxes.
- 15. Ø Promote beJer reporAng guidelines in journals Ø Include reviewing guidelines Ø Provide tools to reference research resources with unique and persistent IDs/URIs Ø Train librarians and other data stewards to apply data standards What are we going to do about it?