Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/133207

A Universal Metric For Evaluating, Optimising And Benchmarking The Performance Of A Research Technology Platform (RTP)

Abstract

Research Technology Platforms (RTPs) exist to facilitate the application and utilisation of specific analytical technologies to the highest possible standard thus delivering reputable data across a broad spectrum of research themes. Specifically, RTPs centralise expertise in a given technology and provide an unparalleled level of continuity and practical knowledge retention that simply cannot be achieved by more organic, ad hoc means of support. As small non profit businesses often tasked with recovering all or a percentage of their running costs, RTPs are under significant pressure to keep pace with rapidly advancing technology and new methodologies against a back drop of dwindling funding for scientific research. At present there are a number of non-trivial issues that make assessing the operational performance of a RTP difficult to determine on a standalone basis let alone attempting to benchmark against other RTPs within the same or different technology fields. Firstly, depending on the technological speciality the RTP may work to one of essentially three operational models. RTPs such as Bio-Imaging or Cytometry provide access to well-maintained analytical systems that can be utilised by trained individuals for a timed access charge. In some cases there will be a requirement for assisted operation of certain instruments by core staff (e.g. cell sorters). Genomics and Proteomics RTPs tend to function on a project basis whereby users will not access the technology themselves rather pay for a full analytical service often with a milestone-based approach for tracking progress. Other RTPs work to a hybrid approach were technical staff provide certain elements of sample preparation for specific projects prior to analysis on core supported, user accessible instrumentation. Secondly the specific operational costs that each RTP is tasked to recover varies significantly on a local, national and international level due to institutional subsidies. These operational costs can include staff salaries, instrument maintenance, associated running consumables, and in some cases instrument depreciation but there is standardised rule as to what each RTP is tasked to recover and to what percentage.\n\nHere we present a generalised mathematical approach to describe the customisable metrics of any given RTP serviceThe general strategy how to increase performance within the framework of this approach has been identified through breaking down these customisable metrics into components and maximising them according to specific requirements. These strategies could be potentially adopted for different operational or local procedures, integrating the specifics related to the institutional or national policies. The approach laid down here should be considered as a trigger for opening a discussion around how to address optimising RTP performance and allow for benchmarking across the full breadth of RTPs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Petrunkina, A. M., Filby, A.. 2017-05-02. A Universal Metric For Evaluating, Optimising And Benchmarking The Performance Of A Research Technology Platform (RTP). https://doi.org/10.1101/133207

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗

Biology Undergraduates Use of AI-Enabled Feedback to Revise Scientific Writing: Recipience and Barriers

Background: Instructors and education researchers are increasingly developing feedback with the assistance of generative AI, which we refer to as AI-enabled feedback, yet we do not know whether established understandings of feedback uptake and effectiveness apply similarly in AI-mediated contexts. This makes the recipience of AI-enabled feedback a central concern to understanding how to best support students in developing their scientific writing skills. This study examined how two teams of undergraduate biology students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing, and the extent to which their revisions addressed that feedback. The teams revised their research proposal drafts after receiving AI-enabled feedback developed by their instructor with the aid of a custom AI tool. Results: Our findings show that AI-enabled feedback prompted actionable revision across both teams. Each team addressed approximately half of the feedback comments, indicating comparable levels of uptake despite their differing approaches to revision. We observed that both teams were inconsistent in providing the additional information and reasoning requested in the feedback, and they struggled to address comments requiring self-evaluation. Taken together, we see that students often addressed the more easily actionable parts of AI-enabled feedback while omitting more demanding revisions. Conclusions: These findings provide behavioral evidence of how students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing. The observed patterns suggest that the content of AI-enabled feedback supported meaningful revision, while limitations in students agency, strategies, and volition likely shaped their implementation of comments. Although the degree of uptake observed in this study is encouraging, it is unlikely that a single application of generative AI within the feedback process will resolve all the challenges associated with feedback uptake.

scientific communication and education↗