CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing a modern data workflow for regularly updated data

Yenni, Glenda M., Christensen, Erica M., Bledsoe, Ellen K., Supp, Sarah R., Diaz, Renata M., White, Ethan P., Ernest, S. K. Morgan·2019·PLOS Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000125PMC PMC6368360
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000125

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Data workflow for regularly updated data. 1. All field-collected data are double entered with automated checks to prevent invalid values from being entered. 2. The two versions of the double-entered data are compared using an R script, and mismatches are corrected. 3. A pull request is submitted to the data repository (i.e., GitHub), which triggers data checks run by the continuous integration system (i.e., Travis CI). 4. If the system detects any issues, the update is reviewed again, and corrections are made to the pull request, automatically triggering the data checks to run again. 5. Once the new data pass all automated checks, a data manager reviews the changes and merges the new data into the main data repository. 6. Addition of the new data triggers the continuous integration system to run additional scripts to get data from automated sensors (e.g., weather data) and to check for errors. 7. The system then runs scripts that automatically update the supporting tables (information not collected in the field that helps with data use) and updates the version number. 8. Once all tables have been automatically updated, the updates are automatically merged into the main repository. 9. The system automatically triggers a new release on GitHub. 10. The GitHub–Zenodo integration sends the new data release as a new version to Zenodo for archiving. CI, continuous integration.
Fig 1 Data workflow for regularly updated data. 1. All field-collected data are double entered with automated checks to prevent invalid values from being entered. 2. The two versions of the double-entered data are compared using an R script, and mismatches are corrected. 3. A pull request is submitted to the data repository (i.e., GitHub), which triggers data checks run by the continuous integration system (i.e., Travis CI). 4. If the system detects any issues, the update is reviewed again, and corrections are made to the pull request, automatically triggering the data checks to run again. 5. Once the new data pass all automated checks, a data manager reviews the changes and merges the new data into the main data repository. 6. Addition of the new data triggers the continuous integration system to run additional scripts to get data from automated sensors (e.g., weather data) and to check for errors. 7. The system then runs scripts that automatically update the supporting tables (information not collected in the field that helps with data use) and updates the version number. 8. Once all tables have been automatically updated, the updates are automatically merged into the main repository. 9. The system automatically triggers a new release on GitHub. 10. The GitHub–Zenodo integration sends the new data release as a new version to Zenodo for archiving. CI, continuous integration.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. SE Hampton, 2013, Big data and the future of ecology, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 156, 10.1890/120103 · DOI
  2. V Marx, 2013, Biology: The big challenges of big data [Internet], Nature
  3. DB Lindenmayer, 2009, Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 482, 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.005 · DOI
  4. MC Dietze, 2018, Iterative near-term ecological forecasting: Needs, opportunities, and challenges, PNAS
  5. GM Wilkinson, 2018, Early warning signals precede cyanobacterial blooms in multiple whole-lake experiments, Ecological Monographs, 88, 188, 10.1002/ecm.1286 · DOI
  6. PM Misun, 2016, Multi-analyte biosensor interface for real-time monitoring of 3D microtissue spheroids in hanging-drop networks, Microsystems & Nanoengineering, 2, 16022, 10.1038/micronano.2016.22 · DOI
  7. TM Errington, An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research, eLife, 3
  8. SM Ernest, 2018, The Portal Project: a long-term study of a Chihuahuan desert ecosystem, bioRxiv, 332783
  9. SE Hampton, 2017, Skills and Knowledge for Data-Intensive Environmental Research, BioScience, 67, 546, 10.1093/biosci/bix025 · DOI
  10. K Ram, 2013, Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science, Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 8, 7, 10.1186/1751-0473-8-7 · DOI
  11. S Pröll, 2016, WGDC Pilot Git Reference, RDA
  12. Falster D, FitzJohn RG, Pennell MW, Cornwell WK. Versioned data: why it is needed and how it can be achieved (easily and cheaply) [Internet]. PeerJ Inc.; 2017 Nov [cited 2018 Dec 14]. Report No.: e3401v1. Available from: https://peerj.com/preprints/3401
  13. BK Beaulieu-Jones, 2017, Reproducibility of computational workflows is automated using continuous analysis, Nature Biotechnology, 35, 342, 10.1038/nbt.3780 · DOI
  14. D Fowler, 2016, Open Knowledge Labs, Automated Data Validation with Data Packages
  15. H Wickham, 2011, testthat: Get Started with Testing, The R Journal, 3, 5, 10.32614/RJ-2011-002 · DOI
  16. A Rauber, 2016, Data Citation of Evolving Data: Recommendations of the Working Group on Data Citation (WGDC), B2SHARE
  17. C Bergman, 2012, On the Preservation of Published Bioinformatics Code on Github, An Assembly of Fragments
  18. EP White, 2015, Some thoughts on best publishing practices for scientific software, Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 55
  19. OJ Reichman, 2011, Challenges and Opportunities of Open Data in Ecology, Science, 331, 703, 10.1126/science.1197962 · DOI · Paper page
  20. JC Molloy, 2011, The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science, PLoS Biol, 9, e1001195, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195 · DOI · Paper page
  21. V Marx, 2013, Biology: The big challenges of big data, Nature
  22. J Kattge, 2011, TRY–a global database of plant traits, Global Change Biology, 17, 2905, 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02451.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. DS Falster, 2015, BAAD: a Biomass And Allometry Database for woody plants, Ecology, 96, 1445, 10.1890/14-1889.1 · DOI
  24. E Hürlimann, 2011, Toward an Open-Access Global Database for Mapping, Control, and Surveillance of Neglected Tropical Diseases, PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 5, e1404, 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001404 · DOI
  25. M Dornelas, 2018, BioTIME: A database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27, 760, 10.1111/geb.12729 · DOI
  26. MN Vitousek, 2018, HormoneBase, a population-level database of steroid hormone levels across vertebrates, Scientific Data, 5, 180097, 10.1038/sdata.2018.97 · DOI
  27. C-H Chou, 2016, miRTarBase 2016: updates to the experimentally validated miRNA-target interactions database, Nucleic Acids Res, 44, D239, 10.1093/nar/gkv1258 · DOI
  28. M Ogden, 2017, Dat—Distributed Dataset Synchronization And Versioning, Open Science Framework
  29. Y Perez-Riverol, 2016, Ten Simple Rules for Taking Advantage of Git and GitHub, PLoS Comput Biol, 12, e1004947, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004947 · DOI
  30. L Barone, 2017, Unmet needs for analyzing biological big data: A survey of 704 NSF principal investigators, PLoS Comput Biol, 13, e1005755, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005755 · DOI
  31. SE Hampton, 2017, Skills and Knowledge for Data-Intensive Environmental Research, BioScience, 67, 546, 10.1093/biosci/bix025 · DOI
  32. L Estes, 2018, The spatial and temporal domains of modern ecology, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 819, 10.1038/s41559-018-0524-4 · DOI
  33. B Salzberg, 1999, Comparison of Access Methods for Time-evolving Data, ACM Comput Surv, 31, 158, 10.1145/319806.319816 · DOI
  34. PW New, 2014, Global maps of non-traumatic spinal cord injury epidemiology: towards a living data repository, Spinal Cord, 52, 97, 10.1038/sc.2012.165 · DOI
  35. JH Brown, 1998, The Desert Granivory Experiments at Portal, In: Experimental ecology: Issues and perspectives, 71, 10.1093/oso/9780195102413.003.0004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yenni, G. M., Christensen, E. M., Bledsoe, E. K., Supp, S. R., Diaz, R. M., White, E. P., & Ernest, S. K. M.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2019-01-29
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
e3000125
ISSN
1545-7885
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.3000125
PMC
PMC6368360
Cited by
34
References
4
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2019-02-08)
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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