peer review as an extension of bioinformatics

Uploaded on


  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Miles Lincoln LIS590BIL
  • 2.  Currently issues facing research in the sciences  Peer review  Data curation  Publication ▪ Journal, open-source journal, institutional repository, pre-print repository
  • 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.  Peer review grants authority to knowledge Verifies that all aspects of research are sound Where we were
  • 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.  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.  Peer review strained by the volume and type of knowledge we are feeding to it Where we are
  • 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.  Revamped peer review solves problem of traditional peer review AND…  Problems of organization  Data linkage  Best practices Where we want to be
  • 10.  Faculty of 1000 and myExperiment are admirable models for the future of bioinformatics-class peer review Neither one is the killer app
  • 11.  Flexible, collaborative development of knowledge Has established rewards to encourage contribution
  • 12.  Centralizes scientific knowledge and collaborators Promotes reuse, interdisciplinary collaboration
  • 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.  Linked knowledge Baseline required centralized identifiers Transparency and flexibility Collaborative
  • 15. Disagree?Join the