ArticleBiology direct2010
Community annotation in biology.
Article in Biology direct, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review on the Computational Genome Annotation of Sequences Obtained by Next-Generation Sequencing.Biology · 2020Review
- Biomolecular Relationships Discovered from Biological Labyrinth and Lost in Ocean of Literature: Community Efforts Can Rescue Until Automated Artificial Intelligence Takes Over.Frontiers in genetics · 2016Article
- Organizing knowledge to enable personalization of medicine in cancer.Genome biology · 2014Article
- Metadata Standard and Data Exchange Specifications to Describe, Model, and Integrate Complex and Diverse High-Throughput Screening Data from the Library of Integrated Network-based Cellular Signatures (LINCS).Journal of biomolecular screening · 2014Article
- STATdb: a specialised resource for the STATome.PloS one · 2014Article
- Immediate dissemination of student discoveries to a model organism database enhances classroom-based research experiences.CBE life sciences education · 2014Article
- Integration of cardiac proteome biology and medicine by a specialized knowledgebase.Circulation research · 2013Article
- Article
- Updating and curating metabolic pathways of TB.Tuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2013Review
- On Crowd-verification of Biological Networks.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2013Article
- Assessment of community-submitted ontology annotations from a novel database-journal partnership.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012Article
- Directly e-mailing authors of newly published papers encourages community curation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012Article
- Community annotation and bioinformatics workforce development in concert--Little Skate Genome Annotation Workshops and Jamborees.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012Article
- Towards Viral Genome Annotation Standards, Report from the 2010 NCBI Annotation Workshop.Viruses · 2010Article
- The annotation and the usage of scientific databases could be improved with public issue tracker software.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2010Article
- GermOnline 4.0 is a genomics gateway for germline development, meiosis and the mitotic cell cycle.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledAttempts to engage the scientific community to annotate biological data (such as protein/gene function) stored in databases have not been overly successful. There are several hypotheses on why this has not been successful but it is not clear which of these hypotheses are correct. In this study we have surveyed 50 biologists (who have recently published a paper characterizing a gene or protein) to better understand what would make them interested in providing input/contributions to biological databases. Based on our survey two things become clear: a) database managers need to proactively contact biologists to solicit contributions; and b) potential contributors need to be provided with an easy-to-use interface and clear instructions on what to annotate. Other factors such as 'reward' and 'employer/funding agency recognition' previously perceived as motivators was found to be less important. Based on this study we propose community annotation projects should devote resources to direct solicitation for input and streamlining of the processes or interfaces used to collect this input. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by I. King Jordan, Daniel Haft and Yuriy Gusev.
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.