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!

London Book Fair 2024: challenges for publishers

Image
I went to London with a purpose. It’s always good to meet collaborators and friends, but I had other goals with my visit. You see, it’s never good when the decisions that impact us are arrived at without our input. I wanted to bring awareness of my new peer review standards project to those in the publishing industry that can benefit from them. I'm comfortable researching and reviewing, even editing and managing the peer review process, but hearing editors and publishers speak of the big picture issue was an eye-opener. Change is ever present The publishing industry fancies itself as having evolved to explore the heritage and lived experience of minorities, by more frequently placing a spotlight on hidden and undervalued communities. Jonathan Karp, who spoke on the current model of employee ownership that underpins his role as CEO at Simon & Schuster , perfectly exemplified this—with profits now being reinvested in the company, there’s a new collaborative...
Read more

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

London Book Fair 2024: OA and AI

Image
In a survey on the trends of academic publishing conducted in 2023, reflecting on the need to reformulate the current business model was front of mind. The need to optimize operational efficiencies may stem from the increased adoption of open access (OA) policies. For those not in the know, OA is a practice that enables research outputs to be distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, including the ability for copy or reuse, by applying an open license for copyright. The mandates  advocated by the Holdren Memo in the US, the Nelson Memo in the UK, and Plan S for the EU consolidated the view that unrestricted access to research publications is part of an integral right for transparency—we want to view the outcomes of taxpayer-funded research. However, many publishers follow a gold OA model and charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. This means that readers don't pay, because t...
Read more