Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording.

ABSTRACT: Observer bias and other "experimenter effects" occur when researchers' expectations influence study outcome. These biases are strongest when researchers expect a particular result, are measuring subjective variables, and have an incentive to produce data that confirm predictions. To minimize bias, it is good practice to work "blind," meaning that experimenters are unaware of the identity or treatment group of their subjects while conducting research. Here, using text mining and a literature review, we find evidence that blind protocols are uncommon in the life sciences and that nonblind studies tend to report higher effect sizes and more significant p-values. We discuss methods to minimize bias and urge researchers, editors, and peer reviewers to keep blind protocols in mind.

SUBMITTER: Holman L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4496034 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording.

Holman Luke L Head Megan L ML Lanfear Robert R Jennions Michael D MD

PLoS biology 20150708 7

Observer bias and other "experimenter effects" occur when researchers' expectations influence study outcome. These biases are strongest when researchers expect a particular result, are measuring subjective variables, and have an incentive to produce data that confirm predictions. To minimize bias, it is good practice to work "blind," meaning that experimenters are unaware of the identity or treatment group of their subjects while conducting research. Here, using text mining and a literature revi ...[more]

PMID: 26154287

Similar Datasets

Making experimental data tables in the life sciences more FAIR: a pragmatic approach

Project description:Abstract Making data compliant with the FAIR Data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) is still a challenge for many researchers, who are not sure which criteria should be met first and how. Illustrated with experimental data tables associated with a Design of Experiments, we propose an approach that can serve as a model for research data management that allows researchers to disseminate their data by satisfying the main FAIR criteria without insurmountable efforts. More importantly, this approach aims to facilitate the FAIR compliance process by providing researchers with tools to improve their data management practices.

| S-EPMC7736789 | biostudies-literature

Nanopublications for exposing experimental data in the life-sciences: a Huntington's Disease case study.

Project description:Data from high throughput experiments often produce far more results than can ever appear in the main text or tables of a single research article. In these cases, the majority of new associations are often archived either as supplemental information in an arbitrary format or in publisher-independent databases that can be difficult to find. These data are not only lost from scientific discourse, but are also elusive to automated search, retrieval and processing. Here, we use the nanopublication model to make scientific assertions that were concluded from a workflow analysis of Huntington's Disease data machine-readable, interoperable, and citable. We followed the nanopublication guidelines to semantically model our assertions as well as their provenance metadata and authorship. We demonstrate interoperability by linking nanopublication provenance to the Research Object model. These results indicate that nanopublications can provide an incentive for researchers to expose data that is interoperable and machine-readable for future use and preservation for which they can get credits for their effort. Nanopublications can have a leading role into hypotheses generation offering opportunities to produce large-scale data integration.

| S-EPMC4603842 | biostudies-literature

A guideline for reporting experimental protocols in life sciences.

Project description:Experimental protocols are key when planning, performing and publishing research in many disciplines, especially in relation to the reporting of materials and methods. However, they vary in their content, structure and associated data elements. This article presents a guideline for describing key content for reporting experimental protocols in the domain of life sciences, together with the methodology followed in order to develop such guideline. As part of our work, we propose a checklist that contains 17 data elements that we consider fundamental to facilitate the execution of the protocol. These data elements are formally described in the SMART Protocols ontology. By providing guidance for the key content to be reported, we aim (1) to make it easier for authors to report experimental protocols with necessary and sufficient information that allow others to reproduce an experiment, (2) to promote consistency across laboratories by delivering an adaptable set of data elements, and (3) to make it easier for reviewers and editors to measure the quality of submitted manuscripts against an established criteria. Our checklist focuses on the content, what should be included. Rather than advocating a specific format for protocols in life sciences, the checklist includes a full description of the key data elements that facilitate the execution of the protocol.

| S-EPMC5978404 | biostudies-literature

Best practice data life cycle approaches for the life sciences.

Project description:Throughout history, the life sciences have been revolutionised by technological advances; in our era this is manifested by advances in instrumentation for data generation, and consequently researchers now routinely handle large amounts of heterogeneous data in digital formats. The simultaneous transitions towards biology as a data science and towards a 'life cycle' view of research data pose new challenges. Researchers face a bewildering landscape of data management requirements, recommendations and regulations, without necessarily being able to access data management training or possessing a clear understanding of practical approaches that can assist in data management in their particular research domain. Here we provide an overview of best practice data life cycle approaches for researchers in the life sciences/bioinformatics space with a particular focus on 'omics' datasets and computer-based data processing and analysis. We discuss the different stages of the data life cycle and provide practical suggestions for useful tools and resources to improve data management practices.

| S-EPMC6069748 | biostudies-literature

Implementation of linked data in the life sciences at BioHackathon 2011.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Linked Data has gained some attention recently in the life sciences as an effective way to provide and share data. As a part of the Semantic Web, data are linked so that a person or machine can explore the web of data. Resource Description Framework (RDF) is the standard means of implementing Linked Data. In the process of generating RDF data, not only are data simply linked to one another, the links themselves are characterized by ontologies, thereby allowing the types of links to be distinguished. Although there is a high labor cost to define an ontology for data providers, the merit lies in the higher level of interoperability with data analysis and visualization software. This increase in interoperability facilitates the multi-faceted retrieval of data, and the appropriate data can be quickly extracted and visualized. Such retrieval is usually performed using the SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language) query language, which is used to query RDF data stores. For the database provider, such interoperability will surely lead to an increase in the number of users. RESULTS: This manuscript describes the experiences and discussions shared among participants of the week-long BioHackathon 2011 who went through the development of RDF representations of their own data and developed specific RDF and SPARQL use cases. Advice regarding considerations to take when developing RDF representations of their data are provided for bioinformaticians considering making data available and interoperable. CONCLUSIONS: Participants of the BioHackathon 2011 were able to produce RDF representations of their data and gain a better understanding of the requirements for producing such data in a period of just five days. We summarize the work accomplished with the hope that it will be useful for researchers involved in developing laboratory databases or data analysis, and those who are considering such technologies as RDF and Linked Data.

| S-EPMC4429360 | biostudies-literature

BioHackathon 2015: Semantics of data for life sciences and reproducible research.

Project description:We report on the activities of the 2015 edition of the BioHackathon, an annual event that brings together researchers and developers from around the world to develop tools and technologies that promote the reusability of biological data. We discuss issues surrounding the representation, publication, integration, mining and reuse of biological data and metadata across a wide range of biomedical data types of relevance for the life sciences, including chemistry, genotypes and phenotypes, orthology and phylogeny, proteomics, genomics, glycomics, and metabolomics. We describe our progress to address ongoing challenges to the reusability and reproducibility of research results, and identify outstanding issues that continue to impede the progress of bioinformatics research. We share our perspective on the state of the art, continued challenges, and goals for future research and development for the life sciences Semantic Web.

| S-EPMC7141167 | biostudies-literature

The ELIXIR Core Data Resources: fundamental infrastructure for the life sciences.

Project description:Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

| S-EPMC7446027 | biostudies-literature

Post-Doc Interviews in the Life Sciences: An Often-Overlooked Process that Is Susceptible to Bias.

Project description:Post-doctoral training is a critical career stage for researchers in the life sciences, yet interviewing for a post-doctoral position is largely an unregulated process. Without regulation, interviews are susceptible to unconscious biases that may lead to discrimination against certain demographic groups (e.g., women and minorities). Using data from an online survey of post-docs, we show that interview procedures for post-doctoral positions in the life sciences are correlated with several factors (e.g., candidate demographics) in ways that may bias the outcome of interviews. We discuss key components of interviews and suggest that conducting standardized, well-planned interviews that are less susceptible to unconscious biases may help increase the retention of women and under-represented minorities in the life sciences.

| S-EPMC7671148 | biostudies-literature

Care to share? Experimental evidence on code sharing behavior in the social sciences.

Project description:Transparency and peer control are cornerstones of good scientific practice and entail the replication and reproduction of findings. The feasibility of replications, however, hinges on the premise that original researchers make their data and research code publicly available. This applies in particular to large-N observational studies, where analysis code is complex and may involve several ambiguous analytical decisions. To investigate which specific factors influence researchers' code sharing behavior upon request, we emailed code requests to 1,206 authors who published research articles based on data from the European Social Survey between 2015 and 2020. In this preregistered multifactorial field experiment, we randomly varied three aspects of our code request's wording in a 2x4x2 factorial design: the overall framing of our request (enhancement of social science research, response to replication crisis), the appeal why researchers should share their code (FAIR principles, academic altruism, prospect of citation, no information), and the perceived effort associated with code sharing (no code cleaning required, no information). Overall, 37.5% of successfully contacted authors supplied their analysis code. Of our experimental treatments, only framing affected researchers' code sharing behavior, though in the opposite direction we expected: Scientists who received the negative wording alluding to the replication crisis were more likely to share their research code. Taken together, our results highlight that the availability of research code will hardly be enhanced by small-scale individual interventions but instead requires large-scale institutional norms.

| S-EPMC10406284 | biostudies-literature

Codifying collegiality: recent developments in data sharing policy in the life sciences.

Project description:Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.

| S-EPMC4178158 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data