Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25472764›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014

Community-driven development for computational biology at Sprints, Hackathons and Codefests.

Steffen Möller, Enis Afgan, Michael Banck, Raoul J P Bonnal, Timothy Booth, John Chilton, Peter J A Cock, Markus Gumbel, Nomi Harris, Richard Holland and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Ten simple rules to run a successful BioHackathon.PLoS computational biology · 2020
    Article
  6. Scalable Workflows and Reproducible Data Analysis for Genomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Steffen Möller
Enis Afgan
Michael Banck
Raoul J P Bonnal
Timothy Booth
John Chilton
Peter J A Cock
Markus Gumbel
Nomi Harris
Richard Holland
Matúš Kalaš
László Kaján
Eri Kibukawa
David R Powel
Pjotr Prins
Jacqueline Quinn
Olivier Sallou
Francesco Strozzi
Torsten Seemann
Clare Sloggett
Stian Soiland-Reyes
William Spooner
Sascha Steinbiss
Andreas Tille
Anthony J Travis
Roman Guimera
Toshiaki Katayama
Brad A Chapman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputational biology comprises a wide range of technologies and approaches. Multiple technologies can be combined to create more powerful workflows if the individuals contributing the data or providing tools for its interpretation can find mutual understanding and consensus. Much conversation and joint investigation are required in order to identify and implement the best approaches. Traditionally, scientific conferences feature talks presenting novel technologies or insights, followed up by informal discussions during coffee breaks. In multi-institution collaborations, in order to reach agreement on implementation details or to transfer deeper insights in a technology and practical skills, a representative of one group typically visits the other. However, this does not scale well when the number of technologies or research groups is large. Conferences have responded to this issue by introducing Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) sessions, which offer an opportunity for individuals with common interests to intensify their interaction. However, parallel BoF sessions often make it hard for participants to join multiple BoFs and find common ground between the different technologies, and BoFs are generally too short to allow time for participants to program together.

resultsThis report summarises our experience with computational biology Codefests, Hackathons and Sprints, which are interactive developer meetings. They are structured to reduce the limitations of traditional scientific meetings described above by strengthening the interaction among peers and letting the participants determine the schedule and topics. These meetings are commonly run as loosely scheduled "unconferences" (self-organized identification of participants and topics for meetings) over at least two days, with early introductory talks to welcome and organize contributors, followed by intensive collaborative coding sessions. We summarise some prominent achievements of those meetings and describe differences in how these are organised, how their audience is addressed, and their outreach to their respective communities.

conclusionsHackathons, Codefests and Sprints share a stimulating atmosphere that encourages participants to jointly brainstorm and tackle problems of shared interest in a self-driven proactive environment, as well as providing an opportunity for new participants to get involved in collaborative projects.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyCooperative BehaviorSoftwareCommunicationInternet

Identifiers

PMID25472764
PMCPMC4255748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.