构建和管理用于比较分析的数据库的最佳实践。

L. Schwanz, A. Gunderson, Maider Iglesias‐Carrasco, Michele A. Johnson, J. Kong, J. Riley, N. Wu
{"title":"构建和管理用于比较分析的数据库的最佳实践。","authors":"L. Schwanz, A. Gunderson, Maider Iglesias‐Carrasco, Michele A. Johnson, J. Kong, J. Riley, N. Wu","doi":"10.1242/jeb.243295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comparative analyses have a long history of macro-ecological and -evolutionary approaches to understand structure, function, mechanism and constraint. As the pace of science accelerates, there is ever-increasing access to diverse types of data and open access databases that are enabling and inspiring new research. Whether conducting a species-level trait-based analysis or a formal meta-analysis of study effect sizes, comparative approaches share a common reliance on reliable, carefully curated databases. Unlike many scientific endeavors, building a database is a process that many researchers undertake infrequently and in which we are not formally trained. This Commentary provides an introduction to building databases for comparative analyses and highlights challenges and solutions that the authors of this Commentary have faced in their own experiences. We focus on four major tips: (1) carefully strategizing the literature search; (2) structuring databases for multiple use; (3) establishing version control within (and beyond) your study; and (4) the importance of making databases accessible. We highlight how one's approach to these tasks often depends on the goal of the study and the nature of the data. Finally, we assert that the curation of single-question databases has several disadvantages: it limits the possibility of using databases for multiple purposes and decreases efficiency due to independent researchers repeatedly sifting through large volumes of raw information. We argue that curating databases that are broader than one research question can provide a large return on investment, and that research fields could increase efficiency if community curation of databases was established.","PeriodicalId":22458,"journal":{"name":"THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best practices for building and curating databases for comparative analyses.\",\"authors\":\"L. Schwanz, A. Gunderson, Maider Iglesias‐Carrasco, Michele A. Johnson, J. Kong, J. Riley, N. Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1242/jeb.243295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Comparative analyses have a long history of macro-ecological and -evolutionary approaches to understand structure, function, mechanism and constraint. As the pace of science accelerates, there is ever-increasing access to diverse types of data and open access databases that are enabling and inspiring new research. Whether conducting a species-level trait-based analysis or a formal meta-analysis of study effect sizes, comparative approaches share a common reliance on reliable, carefully curated databases. Unlike many scientific endeavors, building a database is a process that many researchers undertake infrequently and in which we are not formally trained. This Commentary provides an introduction to building databases for comparative analyses and highlights challenges and solutions that the authors of this Commentary have faced in their own experiences. We focus on four major tips: (1) carefully strategizing the literature search; (2) structuring databases for multiple use; (3) establishing version control within (and beyond) your study; and (4) the importance of making databases accessible. We highlight how one's approach to these tasks often depends on the goal of the study and the nature of the data. Finally, we assert that the curation of single-question databases has several disadvantages: it limits the possibility of using databases for multiple purposes and decreases efficiency due to independent researchers repeatedly sifting through large volumes of raw information. We argue that curating databases that are broader than one research question can provide a large return on investment, and that research fields could increase efficiency if community curation of databases was established.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.243295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.243295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

比较分析在宏观生态学和进化学方面有着悠久的历史,可以用来理解结构、功能、机制和约束。随着科学步伐的加快,越来越多的人可以获得各种类型的数据和开放获取数据库,这些数据和数据库正在推动和激励新的研究。无论是进行基于物种水平特征的分析,还是对研究效应大小进行正式的荟萃分析,比较方法都共同依赖于可靠的、精心策划的数据库。与许多科学努力不同,建立数据库是一个许多研究人员很少进行的过程,而且我们没有接受过正式的培训。本评注介绍了如何建立用于比较分析的数据库,并重点介绍了本评注作者在自身经验中面临的挑战和解决方案。我们重点关注四个主要技巧:(1)仔细制定文献检索策略;(2)构建多用途数据库;(3)在学习内外建立版本控制;(4)数据库可访问性的重要性。我们强调一个人完成这些任务的方法通常取决于研究的目标和数据的性质。最后,我们断言单一问题数据库的管理有几个缺点:它限制了将数据库用于多种目的的可能性,并且由于独立研究人员反复筛选大量原始信息而降低了效率。我们认为,管理比一个研究问题更广泛的数据库可以提供巨大的投资回报,如果建立社区数据库管理,研究领域可以提高效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Best practices for building and curating databases for comparative analyses.
Comparative analyses have a long history of macro-ecological and -evolutionary approaches to understand structure, function, mechanism and constraint. As the pace of science accelerates, there is ever-increasing access to diverse types of data and open access databases that are enabling and inspiring new research. Whether conducting a species-level trait-based analysis or a formal meta-analysis of study effect sizes, comparative approaches share a common reliance on reliable, carefully curated databases. Unlike many scientific endeavors, building a database is a process that many researchers undertake infrequently and in which we are not formally trained. This Commentary provides an introduction to building databases for comparative analyses and highlights challenges and solutions that the authors of this Commentary have faced in their own experiences. We focus on four major tips: (1) carefully strategizing the literature search; (2) structuring databases for multiple use; (3) establishing version control within (and beyond) your study; and (4) the importance of making databases accessible. We highlight how one's approach to these tasks often depends on the goal of the study and the nature of the data. Finally, we assert that the curation of single-question databases has several disadvantages: it limits the possibility of using databases for multiple purposes and decreases efficiency due to independent researchers repeatedly sifting through large volumes of raw information. We argue that curating databases that are broader than one research question can provide a large return on investment, and that research fields could increase efficiency if community curation of databases was established.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信