Search

Science is increasingly done in large teams, making it more likely that papers will be written by several authors from different institutes, disciplines, and cultural backgrounds. A small number of “Ten simple rules” papers have been written on collaboration and on writing but not on combining the two. Collaborative writing with multiple authors has additional challenges, including varied levels of engagement of coauthors, provision of fair credit through authorship or acknowledgements, acceptance of a diversity of work styles, and the need for clear communication. Miscommunication, a lack of leadership, and inappropriate tools or writing approaches can lead to frustration, delay of publication, or even the termination of a project. To provide insight into collaborative writing, we use our experience from the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) to frame 10 simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. We consider a collaborative multi-authored paper to have three or more people from at least two different institutions. A multi-authored paper can be a result of a single discrete research project or the outcome of a larger research program that includes other papers based on common data or methods. The writing of a multi-authored paper is embedded within a broader context of planning and collaboration among team members. Our recommended rules include elements of both the planning and writing of a paper, and they can be iterative, although we have listed them in numerical order. It will help to revisit the rules frequently throughout the writing process. With the 10 rules outlined below, we aim to provide a foundation for writing multi-authored papers and conducting exciting and influential science.

“There is no problem that a library card can't solve” according to author Eleanor Brown [1]. This advice is sound, probably for both life and science, but even the best tool (like the library) is most effective when accompanied by instructions and a basic understanding of how and when to use it. For many budding scientists, the first day in a new lab setting often involves a stack of papers, an email full of links to pertinent articles, or some promise of a richer understanding so long as one reads enough of the scientific literature. However, the purpose and approach to reading a scientific article is unlike that of reading a news story, novel, or even a textbook and can initially seem unapproachable. Having good habits for reading scientific literature is key to setting oneself up for success, identifying new research questions, and filling in the gaps in one’s current understanding; developing these good habits is the first crucial step. Advice typically centers around two main tips: read actively and read often. However, active reading, or reading with an intent to understand, is both a learned skill and a level of effort. Although there is no one best way to do this, we present 10 simple rules, relevant to novices and seasoned scientists alike, to teach our strategy for active reading based on our experience as readers and as mentors of undergraduate and graduate researchers, medical students, fellows, and early career faculty. Rules 1–5 are big picture recommendations. Rules 6–8 relate to philosophy of reading. Rules 9–10 guide the “now what?” questions one should ask after reading and how to integrate what was learned into one’s own science.

Papers describing software are an important part of computational fields of scientific research. These “software papers” are unique in a number of ways, and they require special consideration to improve their impact on the scientific community and their efficacy at conveying important information. Here, we discuss 10 specific rules for writing software papers, covering some of the different scenarios and publication types that might be encountered, and important questions from which all computational researchers would benefit by asking along the way., Author summary Computational researchers have a responsibility to ensure that the software they write stands up to the same scientific scrutiny as traditional research studies. These 10 simple rules make doing so easier by enhancing usability, reproducibility, transparency, and other crucial characteristics that aren’t taught in most computer science or research methods curricula.

Interactive data visualization is imperative in the biological sciences. The development of independent layers of interactivity has been in pursuit in the visualization community. We developed bigPint, a data visualization package available on Bioconductor under the GPL-3 license (https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/bigPint.html). Our software introduces new visualization technology that enables independent layers of interactivity using Plotly in R, which aids in the exploration of large biological datasets. The bigPint package presents modernized versions of scatterplot matrices, volcano plots, and litre plots through the implementation of layered interactivity. These graphics have detected normalization issues, differential expression designation problems, and common analysis errors in public RNA-sequencing datasets. Researchers can apply bigPint graphics to their data by following recommended pipelines written in reproducible code in the user manual. In this paper, we explain how we achieved the independent layers of interactivity that are behind bigPint graphics. Pseudocode and source code are provided. Computational scientists can leverage our open-source code to expand upon our layered interactive technology and/or apply it in new ways toward other computational biology tasks., Author summary Biological disciplines face the challenge of increasingly large and complex data. One necessary approach toward eliciting information is data visualization. Newer visualization tools incorporate interactive capabilities that allow scientists to extract information more efficiently than static counterparts. In this paper, we introduce technology that allows multiple independent layers of interactive visualization written in open-source code. This technology can be repurposed across various biological problems. Here, we apply this technology to RNA-sequencing data, a popular next-generation sequencing approach that provides snapshots of RNA quantity in biological samples at given moments in time. It can be used to investigate cellular differences between health and disease, cellular changes in response to external stimuli, and additional biological inquiries. RNA-sequencing data is large, noisy, and biased. It requires sophisticated normalization. The most popular open-source RNA-sequencing data analysis software focuses on models, with little emphasis on integrating effective visualization tools. This is despite sound evidence that RNA-sequencing data is most effectively explored using graphical and numerical approaches in a complementary fashion. The software we introduce can make it easier for researchers to use models and visuals in an integrated fashion during RNA-sequencing data analysis.

During these days of global emergency for the COVID-19 disease outbreak, there is an urgency to share reliable information able to help worldwide life scientists to get better insights and make sense of the large amount of data currently available. In this study we used the results presented in [1] to perform two different Systems Biology analyses on the HCoV-host interactome. In the first one, we reconstructed the interactome of the HCoV-host proteins, integrating it with highly reliable miRNA and drug interactions information. We then added the IL-6 gene, identified in recent publications [2] as heavily involved in the COVID-19 progression and, interestingly, we identified several interactions with the reconstructed interactome. In the second analysis, we performed a Gene Ontology and a Pathways enrichment analysis on the full set of the HCoV-host interactome proteins and on the ones belonging to a significantly dense cluster of interacting proteins identified in the first analysis. Results of the two analyses provide a compact but comprehensive glance on some of the current state-of-the-art regulations, GO, and pathways involved in the HCoV-host interactome, and that could support all scientists currently focusing on SARS-CoV-2 research., Author summary In this paper we provide data about the HCoV-host interactome that can be extracted from the integration of several public available databases. We used the initial interactome published by Zhou et al. and analyzed if there are already known and validated interactions. We also looked into possible known miRNAs and drugs interactions to suggest possible biomarker candidates and treatment options. We also performed a Gene Ontology and a Pathways enrichment analysis to understand which are the pathways most likely involved in the proteins targeted by SARS-CoV-2. This paper not only provides a set of validated and reliable data that could help researchers in their fight against the COVID-19 disease outbreak, but also demonstrates how Systems Biology can be effectively used to quickly gather preliminary but still significant data without resorting only to expensive lab experiments.

A systematic and reproducible “workflow”—the process that moves a scientific investigation from raw data to coherent research question to insightful contribution—should be a fundamental part of academic data-intensive research practice. In this paper, we elaborate basic principles of a reproducible data analysis workflow by defining 3 phases: the Explore, Refine, and Produce Phases. Each phase is roughly centered around the audience to whom research decisions, methodologies, and results are being immediately communicated. Importantly, each phase can also give rise to a number of research products beyond traditional academic publications. Where relevant, we draw analogies between design principles and established practice in software development. The guidance provided here is not intended to be a strict rulebook; rather, the suggestions for practices and tools to advance reproducible, sound data-intensive analysis may furnish support for both students new to research and current researchers who are new to data-intensive work.

You’ve finally completed your dissertation research and have your PhD in hand—yay! Maybe you’re also in the middle of a postdoctoral position. If you’re reading this article, chances are you are actively searching for and applying for faculty positions. (Check out reference [1] if you’re early in the application process and [2] for additional advice!) Unfortunately, many graduate students and postdocs are not taught the skills necessary for acquiring a faculty position after passing the “looks good on paper” part of the application and securing an on-campus interview. One of the last crucial steps in earning a faculty position is your academic job talk. No matter how great of a scientist you are, if you cannot give a compelling job talk, chances are low that you will be hired. Yet many candidates receive little guidance on how to ace this unique and vital test. To help address this gap, we have put together these ten simple rules that will help you give an effective job talk. To be clear, these are rules developed for the academic job talk in a research-heavy department, which is typically in a seminar format. These rules are not targeted toward other formats such as chalk talks or teaching demonstrations, although some pointers may still apply. We are a group primarily composed of University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) faculty, postdocs, and graduate students who participated in two recent job searches in the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department. We evaluated ten job talks over the span of 2 months and discussed their strengths and weaknesses in a weekly seminar course. These ten rules are based on our discussions of what worked (and what didn’t) across the variety of job talks we observed, as well as our various experiences on the job market and search committees over the years.

Research publications and data nowadays should be publicly available on the internet and, theoretically, usable for everyone to develop further research, products, or services. The long-term accessibility of research data is, therefore, fundamental in the economy of the research production process. However, the availability of data is not sufficient by itself, but also their quality must be verifiable. Measures to ensure reuse and reproducibility need to include the entire research life cycle, from the experimental design to the generation of data, quality control, statistical analysis, interpretation, and validation of the results. Hence, high-quality records, particularly for providing a string of documents for the verifiable origin of data, are essential elements that can act as a certificate for potential users (customers). These records also improve the traceability and transparency of data and processes, therefore, improving the reliability of results. Standards for data acquisition, analysis, and documentation have been fostered in the last decade driven by grassroot initiatives of researchers and organizations such as the Research Data Alliance (RDA). Nevertheless, what is still largely missing in the life science academic research are agreed procedures for complex routine research workflows. Here, well-crafted documentation like standard operating procedures (SOPs) offer clear direction and instructions specifically designed to avoid deviations as an absolute necessity for reproducibility. Therefore, this paper provides a standardized workflow that explains step by step how to write an SOP to be used as a starting point for appropriate research documentation., Zweitver��ffentlichungen der Universit��t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe; 1201

We join the increasing call to take computational education of life science students a step further, beyond teaching mere programming and employing existing software tools. We describe a new course, focusing on enriching the curriculum of life science students with abstract, algorithmic, and logical thinking, and exposing them to the computational "culture." The design, structure, and content of our course are influenced by recent efforts in this area, collaborations with life scientists, and our own instructional experience. Specifically, we suggest that an effective course of this nature should: (1) devote time to explicitly reflect upon computational thinking processes, resisting the temptation to drift to purely practical instruction, (2) focus on discrete notions, rather than on continuous ones, and (3) have basic programming as a prerequisite, so students need not be preoccupied with elementary programming issues. We strongly recommend that the mere use of existing bioinformatics tools and packages should not replace hands-on programming. Yet, we suggest that programming will mostly serve as a means to practice computational thinking processes. This paper deals with the challenges and considerations of such computational education for life science students. It also describes a concrete implementation of the course and encourages its use by others.