1,720,975 research outputs found
Training biomedical researchers to effectively collaborate with data scientists
No full textIt is not realistic to expect that all biomedical and health sciences researchers will acquire the skills needed to apply data science techniques to their work. However, these researchers are all going to have to function in a research environment where the use of data science techniques is increasingly important. Collaborations between data scientists and researchers with domain expertise afford new opportunities. However, a lack of researcher awareness about data science can result in missed opportunities for collaboration, and differences in perspective and language can result in failed collaborations. Seeing no existing curricula that met the specific need identified, we developed a class to bridge that gap - Data Science for Non-Data Scientists. The class explains the possibilities, techniques, and terminology of data science, as well as conveying its limitations such as issues of interpretation, implementation and bias. This presentation will describe the motivation for developing the class, outline the approach taken and the elements of the class, describe the different settings in which it has been taught within our institution, and detail the outcomes of the class.</p
Collaborations to support data harmonization and discovery in the BRAIN Initiative
No full textThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) BRAIN Initiative (https://braininitiative.nih.gov/) funds the development and application of innovative technologies to aid in understanding the human brain. In 2017, it introduced funding mechanisms to support:
the development of data archives, standards and tools
collaborative research teams studying brain circuit functions' underlying behavior
Grants to support the latter required the creation of data science cores, which were tasked with ensuring that the FAIR principles were applied to the data that was collected. NIH created a consortium of the directors of the data science cores for each of the ten grants funded in 2017 and 2018. The purpose of the consortium was to promote collaboration, and the sharing of tools and resources. I am the only librarian among the data science core directors, and I am working - both within my project team and the consortium - to increase the focus on metadata and data discovery.
Work is currently ongoing in two areas. The first area involves collaboration with a member of one of the project teams, who had developed a metadata collection tool to capture detailed experimental metadata. We are working together to generalize the existing data model in order to support experimental metadata from all participating labs, and to customize the web interface in order to facilitate efficient metadata collection for labs collecting different types of data. The second area involves exploring the use of a data catalog to improve the discovery of BRAIN Initiative data.
This talk will discuss these projects as well as my experiences in integrating with the project team and working within the data science consortium.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Developing a Replicability Workshop for Our Community of Academic Medical Library Users
No full text"Developing a Replicability Workshop for Our Community of Academic Medical Center Users" is a collaboration between Fred LaPolla and Alisa Surkis and centers around the development of a 90-minute workshop on reproducibility at NYUHSL. This presentation was given on December 2, 2020 at the Research Reproducibility Conference 2020, hosted by the University of Florida.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, issues relating to reproducibility, replicability and scientific rigor have been gaining steady attention both in scholarly journals and in the mainstream press. While classes in our medical center’s graduate curriculum address this issue, little help is available to researchers and support staff. To help address the reproducibility crisis, librarians at an academic health sciences library created a stand-alone 90 minute workshop on reproducibility.
Methods: Building on experience teaching a 1-credit, semester-long graduate curriculum course on Rigor and Reproducibility, we worked to create a 90 minute in-person workshop. We saw this material as filling a need for researchers and staff to be informed of a growing issue and areas that would need to be addressed when developing a research protocol or writing a grant application. Our class employs interactive exercises to cement lessons as well as case-based analysis to challenge participants to think critically about reproducibility in study design and analysis. Our workshop primarily focuses on information about experiment-level replicability, though also discusses issues relating to computational reproducibility, sex as a biological variable and authentication of key resources.
Results: We offered our workshop four times in 2020, each in a different context. When taught as a stand-alone session in our library’s data workshop series, attendance was low, but participant evaluations were positive and students demonstrated engagement with material. In subsequent sessions, which were offered synchronously by Zoom, the library was invited to speak to three groups: dentistry post-docs, summer interns, and clinicians engaged in a research- and data-intensive certificate program. While it was not possible to collect evaluation data for these sessions, feedback from program organizers and level of learner engagement during sessions indicated that the material was well received.
Conclusions: The reproducibility crisis has highlighted the challenges faced by researchers in designing studies that are fully reproducible, and librarians are well positioned to provide training to support researchers’ efforts to engage in rigorous and reproducible research. While the limited attendance at an “opt-in” workshop in the library may reflect that researchers are not likely to seek out this training on their own, the workshop was a good fit for training programs for researchers at our institution, and was well-received by the attendees. For students and early career researchers, the level of material presented offered an introduction to key concepts that will continue to be relevant throughout their careers.
Presentation Recordin
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
