PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Reviewer (2014)
On behalf of PLOS and the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases editorial team, I would like to thank you for participating in the peer review process this past year at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases We very much appreciate your valuable input in 2014. We know there are many claims on your time and expertise but with your help, we have continued to publish an influential, lively and highly accessed Open Access journal. Simply put, we could not do it without you and the thousands of other volunteers for PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases and the other PLOS journals who graciously contributed time reviewing manuscripts.
A public “Thank You” to our 2014 reviewers – including you – was published in February 2015.
(2015) PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2014 Reviewer Thank You. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9(2): e0003621. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003621
Category Archives: science policy
The Reproducibility and Open Science (ROS) Working Group recently finished up a form to begin to gather information on Reproducible Products from the community.
Please take a few minutes to submit information on any product (peer-reviewed manuscript, preprint, or other product). It is only about 20 questions with many multiple choice question.
The google form can be accessed @
Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions or comments.
From: Abraham D. Flaxman
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 4:40 PM
Subject: [Reproducible] licenses and reproducibility: the scholarly communication lens
The recent discussion on reproducibility and licensing inspired me to read something historical about UW and software licensing that has been on my desk for a while. I think others on the list might find it interesting as well, so I scanned a copy for you: https://www.dropbox.com/s/79k92iwm20159of/williams_barnett_digital_ventures_2009.pdf?dl=0
I particularly like the idea that software is communication, and the university is an institute that is good at scholarly communication and at teaching. I think there is some framing here that could be valuable for reproducible research as well. Irreproducible results are, in a sense, a communication failure, and a lot of what we are talking about on this list are different ways to improve our scholarly communication.
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science
The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as “team science.” Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams’ progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.
I am flipping through yet another National Academy report this week. They know what hooks me. This time: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (2015). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18687/reaching-students-what-research-says-about-effective-instruction-in-undergraduate
Lots of ideas for little changes to my class in here…
I mean, not exactly what I will do, but lots of inspiration.
A set of slides from a talk by Matthew Salgnik crossed my inbox recently, titled “Open and Reproducible Research: Goals, Obstacles, and Solutions”. Good stuff! I liked the *bonus points* in the Data-is-available section:
bonus points for releasing extra variables that are not need to reproduce specific analysis.
This gets at what I think is really the point of reproducible research. To make it faster and easier to make new knowledge.
…about interdisciplinary research, at that: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153/facilitating-interdisciplinary-research