Cited by 33Research Data Management PracticesScientific Computing and Data ManagementMachine Learning in Materials Science

Machines first, humans second: on the importance of algorithmic interpretation of open chemistry data

Open access
Clark, Alex M, Williams, Antony J, Ekins, Sean·2015·Journal of Cheminformatics

Abstract

The current rise in the use of open lab notebook techniques means that there are an increasing number of scientists who make chemical information freely and openly available to the entire community as a series of micropublications that are released shortly after the conclusion of each experiment. We propose that this trend be accompanied by a thorough examination of data sharing priorities. We argue that the most significant immediate benefactor of open data is in fact chemical algorithms, which are capable of absorbing vast quantities of data, and using it to present concise insights to working chemists, on a scale that could not be achieved by traditional publication methods. Making this goal practically achievable will require a paradigm shift in the way individual scientists translate their data into digital form, since most contemporary methods of data entry are designed for presentation to humans rather than consumption by machine learning algorithms. We discuss some of the complex issues involved in fixing current methods, as well as some of the immediate benefits that can be gained when open data is published correctly using unambiguous machine readable formats. Graphical AbstractLab notebook entries must target both visualisation by scientists and use by machine learning algorithms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13321-015-0057-7

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A considerable limitation of many databases is that the data are not 'model-ready' or machine-readable, which is needed to successfully use any machine learning methodology.

    “A considerable limitation of many databases is the data are not ‘model-ready’ or machine-readable19 which is needed to successfully use any machine learning methodology.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [27]PubChem, ChemSpider and ChEBI are regularly cited internet resources, which can be accessed via the URLs [ http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov], [ http://chemspider.com] and [ http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi] respectively (accessed October 2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clark, A. M., Williams, A. J., & Ekins, S.
Affiliations
  • Royal Society of Chemistry (GB)
  • Collaborative Drug Discovery (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Clark, Alex M
Venue
Journal of Cheminformatics
Published
2015-03-22
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
9-9
ISSN
1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138095945
Cited by
33
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 1
FWCI
14.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cheminformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
Keywords
open lab notebooks, open data, machine-readable data formats, data sharing, machine learning, chemical information, data curation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review