Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Trusted by 2
Reviews 1
Downloads 291
Views 5
Followed by 5
Following... 19

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Ross has...

    Trusted 5
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Ross Mounce

    Student, Ph.D. Level

    University of Bath

    Publishing re-usable phylogenetic trees, in theory and practice

    Export to Mendeley

    Sharing and re-use of data are essential to the progressive and self-correcting nature of science. In recognition of this principle, journals and funding agencies have adopted policies to encourage sharing of information (data), including empirical data as well as computed inferences such as phylogenetic trees. Here we summarize an ongoing analysis of 1) current practices for sharing phylogenetic trees and associated data; 2) current barriers to effective sharing and reuse of such data; and 3) prospects for reducing these barriers to promote more widespread sharing and re-use. Currently, the technical infrastructure is available to support (with some limitations) rudimentary archiving in conjunction with manuscript publication. Yet, most published trees are not archived, and there is no community standard governing the recommended format or content to ensure a re-usable phylogenetic record. Without a shift in emphasis toward re-usability, along with technology and standards to support such a shift, the value of trees (whether disseminated via public archives, or by other means) will be limited. Interviews with actual or potential secondary consumers of phylogenetic results suggest that there is a considerable market for re-use, but that most attempts end in disappointment. Phylogenetic results available via author requests, journal web sites, archival repositories and project web sites rarely include the critical information that secondary consumers seek, such as unique identifiers for biological sources (including species sources and accession numbers), indicators of quality, and documentation of the analytical methods used to obtain the results.Based on the analysis presented here, we suggest that enabling effective re-use entails a commitment by the research community to several changes from current practice: 1) using globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) to reference informational and material entities; 2) developing and using technology for documenting and exchanging the metadata that facilitate re-use; and 3) supporting development and use of a minimal reporting standard that indicates what data and metadata are considered essential for a re-useable phylogenetic record. We suggest that re-use may be catalyzed most rapidly by identifying and targeting (with appropriate technology) the most promising circumstances for re-use. These might include the extraction of sub-trees from large trees (for use in reconciliation, classification, and comparative analysis); the re-use of seed alignments, sub-alignments and homologized characters; the linking of phylogenies to geographic information (for use in ecology, phylogeography and biogeography); and the construction of supertrees and supermatrices.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : Publishing re-usable phylogenetic trees, in theory and practice
    Author(s) : Arlin Stoltzfus, Brian O'Meara, Jamie Whitacre, Ross Mounce, Dan Rosauer, Rutger Vos, Arlin Stoltzfus
    Abstract : Sharing and re-use of data are essential to the progressive and self-correcting nature of science. In recognition of this principle, journals and funding agencies have adopted policies to encourage sharing of information (data), including empirical data as well as computed inferences such as phylogenetic trees. Here we summarize an ongoing analysis of 1) current practices for sharing phylogenetic trees and associated data; 2) current barriers to effective sharing and reuse of such data; and 3) prospects for reducing these barriers to promote more widespread sharing and re-use. Currently, the technical infrastructure is available to support (with some limitations) rudimentary archiving in conjunction with manuscript publication. Yet, most published trees are not archived, and there is no community standard governing the recommended format or content to ensure a re-usable phylogenetic record. Without a shift in emphasis toward re-usability, along with technology and standards to support such a shift, the value of trees (whether disseminated via public archives, or by other means) will be limited. Interviews with actual or potential secondary consumers of phylogenetic results suggest that there is a considerable market for re-use, but that most attempts end in disappointment. Phylogenetic results available via author requests, journal web sites, archival repositories and project web sites rarely include the critical information that secondary consumers seek, such as unique identifiers for biological sources (including species sources and accession numbers), indicators of quality, and documentation of the analytical methods used to obtain the results.Based on the analysis presented here, we suggest that enabling effective re-use entails a commitment by the research community to several changes from current practice: 1) using globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) to reference informational and material entities; 2) developing and using technology for documenting and exchanging the metadata that facilitate re-use; and 3) supporting development and use of a minimal reporting standard that indicates what data and metadata are considered essential for a re-useable phylogenetic record. We suggest that re-use may be catalyzed most rapidly by identifying and targeting (with appropriate technology) the most promising circumstances for re-use. These might include the extraction of sub-trees from large trees (for use in reconciliation, classification, and comparative analysis); the re-use of seed alignments, sub-alignments and homologized characters; the linking of phylogenies to geographic information (for use in ecology, phylogeography and biogeography); and the construction of supertrees and supermatrices.
    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Other
    Language : English
    Year : 2011

    Affiliations University of Bath
    Journal : Nature Precedings
    Issue : 713
    Publisher : Nature Publishing Group
    Pages : -
    Url : http://precedings.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/npre.2011.6048.1
    Doi : 10.1038/npre.2011.6048.1

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has been reviewed by 1 peer.

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Ross's Peer Evaluation activity

    Trusted by 2
    Reviews 1
    Downloads 291
    Views 5
    Followed by 5
    Following... 19

    Ross has...

    Trusted 5
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.