Open Science News – 8 January 2016
| 8 January, 2016 | Eva Amsen |
|
|
An article in PLOS Biology, and discussed on The Scientist, revealed that, of a random sample of over 400 articles in the biomedical literature, none provided access to all the data! The article is part of a new PLOS Collection on Meta-Research.- But why share? Is open science the way forward? Daniel P. Newman asks this question in a blog post, considering what it takes to practice open science from the perspective of someone at the final stages of his PhD. He concludes that, yes, it is!
- Meanwhile, Virginia Gewin explores some of the existing challenges of open data in and article in Nature. “Despite complications and concerns, the upsides of sharing can be significant.”
- A recent case of data sharing being worthwhile was #tardigate: When the Goldstein lab at UNC published a PNAS paper revealing that 17% of the tardigrade’s genome was the result of horizontal gene transfer, the Blaxter lab in Edinburgh had their doubts. Using the exact same strain of tardigrades, they hadn’t seen anywhere near that amount of bacterial-origin DNA. The group in North Carolina handed over their data, and within a few days the group in Scotland published a re-analysis on bioRxiv. For a good summary of the story to date, science writers Ed Yong and Diana Crow have both covered it in detail.
- Further on the subject of reproducibility in the scientific literature, The Royal Society uploaded a YouTube video (below) which includes a discussion between Sir David Spiegelhalter and Nicole Janz (starting around the 2:20 minute mark). In the video, Janz emphasizes the need for publishers to ask for data, and describes the exercises she uses to introduce the concept of reproducibility to her students.
|
|
previous post
