peer review as an extension of bioinformatics

349 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
349
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

peer review as an extension of bioinformatics

  1. 1. Miles Lincoln LIS590BIL
  2. 2.  Currently issues facing research in the sciences  Peer review  Data curation  Publication ▪ Journal, open-source journal, institutional repository, pre-print repository
  3. 3.  Briefly—don’t want to bore you with this, that’s what the final project is for Where we Where we Where we were are want to be
  4. 4.  Peer review grants authority to knowledge Verifies that all aspects of research are sound Where we were
  5. 5.  We have seen the challenges of integrating new products of scientific research  Datasets  Code  Blogs  Wiki contributions We need to unify these things anyways Applying a new peer review process to these things could unify them + improve their usability
  6. 6.  Points out how broken it is:  One study found reviewers missing most important errors—no way to resolve that in an opaque system  There is a large inequity in the trade off between journal profit and faculty notoriety
  7. 7.  Peer review strained by the volume and type of knowledge we are feeding to it Where we are
  8. 8.  Solutions to old peer review (slow, opaque) lie in harnessing social networks Challenges to doing so:  Redefining academic traditions to validate new forms of interaction  Upkeep of an open source tool needs to be as rewarding as publishing in Nature
  9. 9.  Revamped peer review solves problem of traditional peer review AND…  Problems of organization  Data linkage  Best practices Where we want to be
  10. 10.  Faculty of 1000 and myExperiment are admirable models for the future of bioinformatics-class peer review Neither one is the killer app
  11. 11.  Flexible, collaborative development of knowledge Has established rewards to encourage contribution
  12. 12.  Centralizes scientific knowledge and collaborators Promotes reuse, interdisciplinary collaboration
  13. 13.  What good is data that can only be used by a select few? It will be very important to visualize this data in order to make it accessible to an audience
  14. 14.  Linked knowledge Baseline required centralized identifiers Transparency and flexibility Collaborative
  15. 15. Disagree?Join the conversation:peerpressurebil.wordpress.com

×