Dataset Information

Towards an open science publishing platform.

ABSTRACT: The way science and research is done is rapidly becoming more open and collaborative. The traditional way of publishing new findings in journals is becoming increasingly outdated and no longer serves the needs of much of science. Whilst preprints can bring significant benefits of removing delay and selection, they do not go far enough if simply implemented alongside the existing journal system. We propose that we need a new approach, an Open Science Platform, that takes the benefits of preprints but adds formal, invited, and transparent post-publication peer review. This bypasses the problems of the current journal system and, in doing so, moves the evaluation of research and researchers away from the journal-based Impact Factor and towards a fairer system of article-based qualitative and quantitative indicators. In the long term, it should be irrelevant where a researcher publishes their findings. What is important is that research is shared and made available without delay within a framework that encourages quality standards and requires all players in the research community to work as collaborators.

SUBMITTER: Tracz V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4768651 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards an open science publishing platform.

Tracz Vitek V Lawrence Rebecca R

F1000Research 20160203

The way science and research is done is rapidly becoming more open and collaborative. The traditional way of publishing new findings in journals is becoming increasingly outdated and no longer serves the needs of much of science. Whilst preprints can bring significant benefits of removing delay and selection, they do not go far enough if simply implemented alongside the existing journal system. We propose that we need a new approach, an Open Science Platform, that takes the benefits of preprints ...[more]

PMID: 26962436

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although much work has linked the human microbiome to specific phenotypes and lifestyle variables, data from different projects have been challenging to integrate and the extent of microbial and molecular diversity in human stool remains unknown. Using standardized protocols from the Earth Microbiome Project and sample contributions from over 10,000 citizen-scientists, together with an open research network, we compare human microbiome specimens primarily from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia to one another and to environmental samples. Our results show an unexpected range of beta-diversity in human stool microbiomes compared to environmental samples; demonstrate the utility of procedures for removing the effects of overgrowth during room-temperature shipping for revealing phenotype correlations; uncover new molecules and kinds of molecular communities in the human stool metabolome; and examine emergent associations among the microbiome, metabolome, and the diversity of plants that are consumed (rather than relying on reductive categorical variables such as veganism, which have little or no explanatory power). We also demonstrate the utility of the living data resource and cross-cohort comparison to confirm existing associations between the microbiome and psychiatric illness and to reveal the extent of microbiome change within one individual during surgery, providing a paradigm for open microbiome research and education. IMPORTANCE We show that a citizen science, self-selected cohort shipping samples through the mail at room temperature recaptures many known microbiome results from clinically collected cohorts and reveals new ones. Of particular interest is integrating n = 1 study data with the population data, showing that the extent of microbiome change after events such as surgery can exceed differences between distinct environmental biomes, and the effect of diverse plants in the diet, which we confirm with untargeted metabolomics on hundreds of samples.

Project description:Laboratory workflows and preclinical models have become increasingly diverse and complex. Confronted with the dilemma of a multitude of information with ambiguous relevance for their specific experiments, scientists run the risk of overlooking critical factors that can influence the planning, conduct and results of studies and that should have been considered a priori. To address this problem, we developed "PEERS" (Platform for the Exchange of Experimental Research Standards), an open-access online platform that is built to aid scientists in determining which experimental factors and variables are most likely to affect the outcome of a specific test, model or assay and therefore ought to be considered during the design, execution and reporting stages. The PEERS database is categorized into in vivo and in vitro experiments and provides lists of factors derived from scientific literature that have been deemed critical for experimentation. The platform is based on a structured and transparent system for rating the strength of evidence related to each identified factor and its relevance for a specific method/model. In this context, the rating procedure will not solely be limited to the PEERS working group but will also allow for a community-based grading of evidence. We here describe a working prototype using the Open Field paradigm in rodents and present the selection of factors specific to each experimental setup and the rating system. PEERS not only offers users the possibility to search for information to facilitate experimental rigor, but also draws on the engagement of the scientific community to actively expand the information contained within the platform. Collectively, by helping scientists search for specific factors relevant to their experiments, and to share experimental knowledge in a standardized manner, PEERS will serve as a collaborative exchange and analysis tool to enhance data validity and robustness as well as the reproducibility of preclinical research. PEERS offers a vetted, independent tool by which to judge the quality of information available on a certain test or model, identifies knowledge gaps and provides guidance on the key methodological considerations that should be prioritized to ensure that preclinical research is conducted to the highest standards and best practice.

Dataset Information

Towards an open science publishing platform.

Publications

Towards an open science publishing platform.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets