ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2013
AuthorReward: increasing community curation in biological knowledge wikis through automated authorship quantification.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social support for collaboration and group awareness in life science research teams.Source code for biology and medicine · 2019Article
- Database Resources of the BIG Data Center in 2018.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- The BIG Data Center: from deposition to integration to translation.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- Information Commons for Rice (IC4R).Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
- Predicting structured metadata from unstructured metadata.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016Article
- LncRNAWiki: harnessing community knowledge in collaborative curation of human long non-coding RNAs.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
- Bringing biocuration to China.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2014Article
- RiceWiki: a wiki-based database for community curation of rice genes.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
summaryCommunity curation-harnessing community intelligence in knowledge curation, bears great promise in dealing with the flood of biological knowledge. To exploit the full potential of the scientific community for knowledge curation, multiple biological wikis (bio-wikis) have been built to date. However, none of them have achieved a substantial impact on knowledge curation. One of the major limitations in bio-wikis is insufficient community participation, which is intrinsically because of lack of explicit authorship and thus no credit for community curation. To increase community curation in bio-wikis, here we develop AuthorReward, an extension to MediaWiki, to reward community-curated efforts in knowledge curation. AuthorReward quantifies researchers' contributions by properly factoring both edit quantity and quality and yields automated explicit authorship according to their quantitative contributions. AuthorReward provides bio-wikis with an authorship metric, helpful to increase community participation in bio-wikis and to achieve community curation of massive biological knowledge. AVAILABILITY: http://cbb.big.ac.cn/software. CONTACT: zhangzhang@big.ac.cn SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.