Reusable methods for Open Science

It's Peer Review Week 2023!

This is the second post of this week, so we're discussing how reporting of methodology came to be regarded as an asset to the reproducibility initiative.

Stick around and follow daily!

If you want to read why the scientific method was developed, check it here.
If you want to know why you should care, read on.

 

Promoting Reusable and Open Methods and Protocols (PRO-MaP) is a set of recommendations aimed at improving the reporting of protocols in the life sciences. 

 

I first heard of this initiative through my work at Bio-protocol. This is an online peer-reviewed protocol journal that curates and hosts high quality, free access, step-by-step protocols across the life sciences. Although relatively recent, it's by no means unique.

The expansion of protocol sharing led to the establishment of detailed guidelines for preprints, and validation sections were introduced in protocol articles. The detailed features of these protocols, structured in a step-by-step format, make them reusable. 

PRO-MaP also addresses other stakeholders but those recommendations aimed at researchers are:

  1. Document, share, and follow protocols within your research group, such as maintaining online lab books, with referenced and updated methods.

  2. Follow relevant study design and reporting guidelines when designing and conducting your study and writing your methods. Examples are the PREPARE and MDAR frameworks.

  3. Describe methods in enough detail to allow others to reproduce the experiment. Report research resource identifiers (RRIDs) to unambiguously identify cell lines, antibodies, model organisms, plasmids, software, and tools. 

  4. Strengthen static methods sections by linking out to protocols posted on dynamic
    platforms, such as protocol repositories that are open access, DOI citable, and     that allow versioning and forking.

  5. Use methodological shortcut citations responsibly.

  6. Include methods and materials availability statements in papers and publications.

  7. Ensure that methods sections are clearly formatted and user friendly, and make it easy to connect data to specific methods used to generate that data.

  8. Advocate for or offer training in open and reproducible methods and protocols.

  9. Support a culture that rewards and incentivizes method development and protocol sharing.

     

This is a lot to take in... so I'll go through the intricacies of what makes a good protocol:

  • Title 

  • Abstract that specifies what the protocol produces

  • List of required items

  • Safety information

  • Chronological step-by-step instructions

  • Troubleshooting

  • Protocol limitations and assumptions

  • References

     

    BONUS: 

    • Keywords 

    • Data analysis

    • Validation

    • Graphical abstract



Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more