peer review as an extension of bioinformatics
TRANSCRIPT
Currently issues facing research in the sciences
Peer review
Data curation
Publication
▪ Journal, open-source journal, institutional repository, pre-print repository
Briefly—don’t want to bore you with this, that’s what the final project is for
Where we were
Where we are
Where we want to be
Peer review grants authority to knowledge Verifies that all aspects of research are sound
Where we were
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
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
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
Revamped peer review solves problem of traditional peer review AND…
Problems of organization
Data linkage
Best practices
Where we want to be
Faculty of 1000 and myExperiment are admirable models for the future of bioinformatics-class peer review
Neither one is the killer app
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
Linked knowledge Baseline required centralized identifiers Transparency and flexibility Collaborative