ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008
Methodology capture: discriminating between the "best" and the rest of community practice.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of metadata in reproducible computational research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
- A Survey of Bioinformatics Database and Software Usage through Mining the Literature.PloS one · 2016Article
- ReproPhylo: An Environment for Reproducible Phylogenomics.PLoS computational biology · 2015Article
- Ambiguity and variability of database and software names in bioinformatics.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2015Article
- Extracting patterns of database and software usage from the bioinformatics literature.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
- bioNerDS: exploring bioinformatics' database and software use through literature mining.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Mining semantic networks of bioinformatics e-resources from the literature.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2011Article
- What the papers say: text mining for genomics and systems biology.Human genomics · 2010Review
- LINNAEUS: a species name identification system for biomedical literature.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe methodologies we use both enable and help define our research. However, as experimental complexity has increased the choice of appropriate methodologies has become an increasingly difficult task. This makes it difficult to keep track of available bioinformatics software, let alone the most suitable protocols in a specific research area. To remedy this we present an approach for capturing methodology from literature in order to identify and, thus, define best practice within a field.
resultsOur approach is to implement data extraction techniques on the full-text of scientific articles to obtain the set of experimental protocols used by an entire scientific discipline, molecular phylogenetics. Our methodology for identifying methodologies could in principle be applied to any scientific discipline, whether or not computer-based. We find a number of issues related to the nature of best practice, as opposed to community practice. We find that there is much heterogeneity in the use of molecular phylogenetic methods and software, some of which is related to poor specification of protocols. We also find that phylogenetic practice exhibits field-specific tendencies that have increased through time, despite the generic nature of the available software. We used the practice of highly published and widely collaborative researchers ("expert" researchers) to analyse the influence of authority on community practice. We find expert authors exhibit patterns of practice common to their field and therefore act as useful field-specific practice indicators.
conclusionWe have identified a structured community of phylogenetic researchers performing analyses that are customary in their own local community and significantly different from those in other areas. Best practice information can help to bridge such subtle differences by increasing communication of protocols to a wider audience. We propose that the practice of expert authors from the field of evolutionary biology is the closest to contemporary best practice in phylogenetic experimental design. Capturing best practice is, however, a complex task and should also acknowledge the differences between fields such as the specific context of the analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.