Devil in the details
Nature 470, 305–306 (17 February 2011) doi:10.1038/470305b
Published online 16 February 2011
To ensure their results are reproducible, analysts should show their workings.
Subject terms: Genetics and genomics, Authorship, Research community
As analysis of huge data sets with computers becomes an integral tool of research, how should researchers document and report their use of software? This question was brought to the fore when the release of e-mails stolen from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, generated a media fuss in 2009, and has been widely discussed, including in this journal. The issue lies at the heart of scientific endeavour: how detailed an information trail should researchers leave so that others can reproduce their findings?
The question is perhaps most pressing in the field of genomics and sequence analysis. As biologists process larger and more complex data sets and publish only the results, some argue that the reporting of how those data were analysed is often insufficient.
Take a recent survey by comparative genomist Anton Nekrutenko at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and computer scientist James Taylor of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. The pair examined 14 sequencing papers published last year in Science, Nature and Nature Genetics, and found that the publications often lacked essential details needed to reproduce the analysis — the papers referenced merely bioinformatics software, for example, without noting the version used or the value of key parameters.
+++++
+++++
PERGUNTAS IMPERTINENTES DESTE BLOGGER:
Este rigor heurístico -- contexto de justificação teórica -- será exigido da teoria geral da evolução? Por ser a teoria da evolução uma teoria científica de longo alcance teórico como reproduzir a hipótese da ancestralidade comum? É monofilética ou polifilética? A mistura das duas ou de nenhuma delas? Os cientistas sabem realmente COMO é, COMO se deu, COMO se dá, COMO se dará a evolução, a maior ideia que toda a humanidade já teve, ou o fato, Fato, FATO da evolução é um fato científico aceito a priori???
