↓ Skip to main content

Where next for the reproducibility agenda in computational biology?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 1,126)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Where next for the reproducibility agenda in computational biology?
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12918-016-0288-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Lewis, Charles E. Breeze, Jane Charlesworth, Oliver J. Maclaren, Jonathan Cooper

Abstract

The concept of reproducibility is a foundation of the scientific method. With the arrival of fast and powerful computers over the last few decades, there has been an explosion of results based on complex computational analyses and simulations. The reproducibility of these results has been addressed mainly in terms of exact replicability or numerical equivalence, ignoring the wider issue of the reproducibility of conclusions through equivalent, extended or alternative methods. We use case studies from our own research experience to illustrate how concepts of reproducibility might be applied in computational biology. Several fields have developed 'minimum information' checklists to support the full reporting of computational simulations, analyses and results, and standardised data formats and model description languages can facilitate the use of multiple systems to address the same research question. We note the importance of defining the key features of a result to be reproduced, and the expected agreement between original and subsequent results. Dynamic, updatable tools for publishing methods and results are becoming increasingly common, but sometimes come at the cost of clear communication. In general, the reproducibility of computational research is improving but would benefit from additional resources and incentives. We conclude with a series of linked recommendations for improving reproducibility in computational biology through communication, policy, education and research practice. More reproducible research will lead to higher quality conclusions, deeper understanding and more valuable knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 68 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 26%
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Master 8 11%
Librarian 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 18%
Computer Science 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Engineering 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 9 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,870,865
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#31
of 1,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,179
of 360,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,126 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.