The Dawn of Open Access to Phylogenetic Data

The scientific enterprise depends critically on the preservation of and open access to published data. This basic tenet applies acutely to phylogenies (estimates of evolutionary relationships among species). Increasingly, phylogenies are estimated from increasingly large, genome-scale datasets using increasingly complex statistical methods that require increasing levels of expertise and computational investment. Moreover, the resulting phylogenetic data provide an explicit historical perspective that critically informs research in a vast and growing number of scientific disciplines. One such use is the study of changes in rates of lineage diversification (speciation - extinction) through time. As part of a meta-analysis in this area, we sought to collect phylogenetic data (comprising nucleotide sequence alignment and tree files) from 217 studies published in 46 journals over a 13-year period. We document our attempts to procure those data (from online archives and by direct request to corresponding authors), and report results of analyses (using Bayesian logistic regression) to assess the impact of various factors on the success of our efforts. Overall, complete phylogenetic data for ~60% of these studies are effectively lost to science. Our study indicates that phylogenetic data are more likely to be deposited in online archives and/or shared upon request when: (1) the publishing journal has a strong data-sharing policy; (2) the publishing journal has a higher impact factor, and; (3) the data are requested from faculty rather than students. Although the situation appears dire, our analyses suggest that it is far from hopeless: recent initiatives by the scientific community -- including policy changes by journals and funding agencies -- are improving the state of affairs

Shelterbelts: a row of trees or the next best thing to mitigating GHGs on prairie landscapes

Non-Peer Reviewe

Who Shares? Who Doesn't? Factors Associated with Openly Archiving Raw Research Data

Many initiatives encourage investigators to share their raw datasets in hopes of increasing research efficiency and quality. Despite these investments of time and money, we do not have a firm grasp of who openly shares raw research data, who doesn't, and which initiatives are correlated with high rates of data sharing. In this analysis I use bibliometric methods to identify patterns in the frequency with which investigators openly archive their raw gene expression microarray datasets after study publication

Data citation in the wild

Consistent attribution of research data upon reuse is necessary to reward the original data-producing investigators, reconstruct provenance, and inform data sharing policies, tool requirements, and funding decisions. Unfortunately, norms for data attribution are varied and often weak. As part of the DataONE 2010 summer internship program, three interns studied the policies, practice, and implications of current data attribution behavior in the environmental sciences. We found that few policies recommend robust data citation practices: in our preliminary evaluation, only one-third of repositories (n=26), 6% of journals (n=307), and 1 of 53 funders suggested a best practice for data citation. We manually reviewed 500 papers published between 2000 and 2010 across six journals; of the 198 papers that reused datasets, only 14% reported a unique dataset identifier in their dataset attribution, and a partially-overlapping 12% mentioned the author name and repository name. Few citations to datasets themselves were made in the article references section. In multivariate analysis, citation patterns were more correlated with repository (with citations to Genbank being most complete) than journal or datatype. Attribution patterns were found to be steady over time. Consistent with these findings, dataset reuse was difficult to track through standard retrieval resources. Searching by repository name retrieved many instances of data submission rather than data reuse, combing the citation history of data creation articles was time consuming, and searching citation databases for the few early-adopter dataset DOIs and HDLs in reference lists failed due to apparent limitations in database query capabilities and structured extraction of DOIs. We hope these descriptions of the current data attribution environment will highlight outstanding issues and motivate change in policy, tools, and practice. This research was done as open science (http://openwetware.org/wiki/DataONE:Notebook/Summer_2010): ask us about it

The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews : a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research

© 2014 Bunn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR funded CRGs during the years 2007-11. Methods: We sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development, and impact on practice/services). Results: A total of 1502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR funded CRGs between 2007-11. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance; 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use. Conclusions: Health and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.Peer reviewe

The postdigital challenge of redefining academic publishing from the margins

This paper explores relationships between knowledge production and academic publication and shows that the current political economy of mainstream academic publishing has resulted from a complex interplay between large academic publishers, academics, and hacker-activists. The process of publishing is a form of ‘social production’ that takes place across the economy, politics and culture, all of which are in turn accommodating both old and new technology in our postdigital age. Technologies such as software cannot be separated from human labour, academic centres cannot be looked at in isolation from their margins, and the necessity of transdisciplinary approaches does not imply the disappearance of traditional disciplines. In the postdigital age, the concept of the margins has not disappeared, but it has become somewhat marginal in its own right. We need to develop a new language of describing what we mean by ‘marginal voices’ in the social relations between knowledge production and academic publication. Universities require new strategies for cohabitation of, and collaboration between, various socio-technological actors, and new postdigital politics and practice of knowledge production and academic publishing

Inhibition of proteasome activity by the dietary flavonoid apigenin is associated with growth inhibition in cultured breast cancer cells and xenografts

Abstract Introduction Proteasome inhibition is an attractive approach to anticancer therapy and may have relevancy in breast cancer treatment. Natural products, such as dietary flavonoids, have been suggested as natural proteasome inhibitors with potential use for cancer prevention and therapeutics. We previously reported that apigenin, a flavonoid widely distributed in many fruits and vegetables, can inhibit proteasome activity and can induce apoptosis in cultured leukemia Jurkat T cells. Whether apigenin has proteasome-inhibitory activity in the highly metastatic human breast MDA-MB-231 cells and xenografts, however, is unknown. Methods MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell cultures and xenografts were treated with apigenin, followed by measurement of reduced cellular viability/proliferation, proteasome inhibition, and apoptosis induction. Inhibition of the proteasome was determined by levels of the proteasomal chymotrypsin-like activity, by ubiquitinated proteins, and by accumulation of proteasome target proteins in extracts of the treated cells or tumors. Apoptotic cell death was measured by capase-3/caspase-7 activation, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage, and immunohistochemistry for terminal nucleotidyl transferase-mediated nick end labeling positivity. Results We report for the first time that apigenin inhibits the proteasomal chymotrypsin-like activity and induces apoptosis not only in cultured MDA-MB-231 cells but also in MDA-MB-231 xenografts. Furthermore, while apigenin has antibreast tumor activity, no apparent toxicity to the tested animals was observed. Conclusion We have shown that apigenin is an effective proteasome inhibitor in cultured breast cancer cells and in breast cancer xenografts. Furthermore, apigenin induces apoptotic cell death in human breast cancer cells and exhibits anticancer activities in tumors. The results suggest its potential benefits in breast cancer prevention and treatment

An ecosystem for linked humanities data

The main promise of the digital humanities is the ability to perform scholar studies at a much broader scale, and in a much more reusable fashion. The key enabler for such studies is the availability of suciently well described data. For the eld of socio-economic history, data usually comes in a tabular form. Existing eorts to curate and publish datasets take a top-down approach and are focused on large collections. This paper presents QBer and the underlying structured data hub, which address the long tail of research data by catering for the needs of individual scholars. QBer allows researchers to publish their (small) datasets, link them to existing vocabularies and other datasets, and thereby contribute to a growing collection of interlinked datasets.We present QBer, and evaluate our rst results by showing how our system facilitates two use cases in socio-economic history

Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 26/03/2018, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2715-9 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Counts of the number of readers registered in the social reference manager Mendeley have been proposed as an early impact indicator for journal articles. Although previous research has shown that Mendeley reader counts for articles tend to have a strong positive correlation with synchronous citation counts after a few years, no previous studies have compared early Mendeley reader counts with later citation counts. In response, this first diachronic analysis compares reader counts within a month of publication with citation counts after 20 months for ten fields. There were moderate or strong correlations in eight out of ten fields, with the two exceptions being the smallest categories (n=18, 36) with wide confidence intervals. The correlations are higher than the correlations between later citations and early citations, showing that Mendeley reader counts are more useful early impact indicators than citation counts