SLIDE 1
Opening Up Scientific Methodology for Collaboration NFAIS OA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Opening Up Scientific Methodology for Collaboration NFAIS OA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Opening Up Scientific Methodology for Collaboration NFAIS OA Conference, October 3, 2017 @lteytelman lenny@protocols.io The Problem - Communication of methods Lessons from the Cancer Reproducibility project (January 2017): Scientists and
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
The Problem - Communication of methods
Lessons from the Cancer Reproducibility project (January 2017):
…. in many cases because they [protocols] had been developed by students and postdocs who were no longer with the lab.
The hardest part, by far, was figuring out exactly what the original labs actually did. Scientific papers come with methods sections that theoretically ought to provide recipes for doing the same experiments. But often, those recipes are incomplete, missing out important steps, details, or ingredients. In some cases, the recipes aren’t described at all; researchers simply cite an earlier study that used a similar technique…
Scientists and journals need to get better at describing their methods and sharing data
- 1. Missing method details (“contact authors” & “as reported elsewhere”)
SLIDE 4
The Problem - Communication of methods
Lessons from the Cancer Reproducibility project (January 2017):
…. in many cases because they [protocols] had been developed by students and postdocs who were no longer with the lab.
The hardest part, by far, was figuring out exactly what the original labs actually did. Scientific papers come with methods sections that theoretically ought to provide recipes for doing the same experiments. But often, those recipes are incomplete, missing out important steps, details, or ingredients. In some cases, the recipes aren’t described at all; researchers simply cite an earlier study that used a similar technique…
Scientists and journals need to get better at describing their methods and sharing data
- 1. Missing method details (“contact authors” & “as reported elsewhere”)
- 2. Once published, impossible to correct and keep up-to-date
SLIDE 5
SLIDE 6
A few examples
SLIDE 7
Small typo in a protocol. Question from researcher. Author replies and corrects in a new version.
SLIDE 8
Small typo in a protocol. Question from researcher. Author replies and corrects in a new version.
SLIDE 9
SLIDE 10
SLIDE 11
SLIDE 12
Traction (adoption)
Public protocols: > 2,000 Private protocols: 4,000
1500 1000 500
Cumulative public protocols
2000 2500
SLIDE 13
Traction (partnerships)
Total partners
Journals (50) Reagent Vendors (19) Biotech Accelerators (10)
20 40 80 60
SLIDE 14
Traction (partnerships)
Total partners
Journals (180) Reagent Vendors (19)
50 100 200 150 250
Biotech Accelerators (10)
SLIDE 15
Scientists creating private protocols (monthly)
50 100 200 150 250
Traction (adoption)
SLIDE 16
Business Model
Private groups Monthly dues to keep protocols visible
- nly to group
members Vendor analytics
Subscription fee to access aggregated usage statistics
SLIDE 17
Long-term preservation
Public APIs: apidocs.protocols.io
SLIDE 18
Prerequisite Questions
(The classic for/non-profit debate is misguided.)
What is the business model? Are are they sustainable? Will they sell my e-mail? Do they do backups? What are long-term preservation plans? How secure is it? Are they open access? Do they have public APIs?
SLIDE 19
Prerequisite Questions
(The classic for/non-profit debate is misguided.)
What is the business model? Are are they sustainable? Will they sell my e-mail? Do they do backups? What are long-term preservation plans? How secure is it? Are they open access? Do they have public APIs?
SLIDE 20
Alexei Stoliartchouk CTO, cofounder Lenny Teytelman CEO, cofounder Irina Makkaveeva CFO, cofounder Anjuli Manche Partnerships Nick Gulev Development Yulia Kurnosova Development Sergey Alekseev Development Vladimir Frolov Development Denise Ting UI/UX
Acknowledgements
Susan Pastore Commerce Monika Khassan Proj Manager