Patching Science - amending the literature through version control

Kane, A.; Amin, B.

doi:10.1101/2022.04.13.487348

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.04.13.487348

Patching Science - amending the literature through version control

Kane, A.·Amin, B.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The ideal of self-correction in science is not well served by the current culture and system surrounding amendments to published literature. Here we report on a survey (N = 132) that highlights academics dissatisfaction with the status quo and their support for an alternative approach. We then describe our view of how amendments could and should work by drawing on the idea of an author-led version control system. Here authors would include a link in their published manuscripts to an updatable website (e.g. a GitHub repository or similar) that could be disseminated in the event of any amendment. Such a system is already in place for computer code and, as such, requires nothing but buy-in from the scientific community - a community that is already evolving towards various open science frameworks. This would remove a number of frictions that discourage amendments thus leading to an improved scientific literature and a healthier academic climate.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Kane, A., Amin, B.. 2022-04-14. Patching Science - amending the literature through version control. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.13.487348

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

Bacttle: a microbiology educational board game for lay public and schools

1.Inspired by the positive impact of serious games on science understanding and motivated by personal interests in scienti[fi]c outreach, we developed Bacttle, an easy-to-play microbiology board game with adaptive difficulty, targeting any player from 7 years old onward. Bacttle addresses both the lay public and teachers for use in classrooms as a way of introducing microbiology concepts. The layout of the game and its mechanism are the result of multiple rounds of trial, feedback and re-design. The [fi]nal version consists of a deck of cards, a 3D-printed board and tokens (with a paper-based alternative), with all digital content open source. Players in Bacttle take on the character of a bacterial species. The aim for each species is to proliferate under the environmental conditions of the board and the interactions with the board and with other players, which vary as the play evolves. Players start with a given number of lives that will increase or decrease based on the traits they play for different environmental scenarios. Such bacterial traits come in the form of cards that can be deployed strategically. In order to assess the impact of the game on microbiological knowledge, we scored differences in the understanding of general concepts before and after playing the game. We assessed a total of 169 visitors at two different university open day science fairs. Players were asked to [fi]ll a brief survey before and after the game with questions targeting conceptual advances. Results show that Bacttle increases general microbiology knowledge on players as young as 5 years old, and with the highest impact on those who have no a priori microbiology comprehension.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2024

Leading researchers in the leadership of leading research universities: meta-research analysis

It is unknown to what extent leading researchers are currently involved in the leadership of leading research universities as presidents or as executive board members. The academic administrative leader (president or equivalent role) of each of the 146 Carnegie tier 1 USA universities and of any of the top-100 universities per Times Higher Education (THE) 2024 ranking and the members of the executive governing bodies (Board of Trustees, Council, Corporation or similar) for the each of the top-20 universities per THE 2024 ranking were examined for high citation impact in their scientific subfield. Highly-cited was defined as the top-2% of a composite citation indicator (that considers citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index and citations to papers as single, first, last authors) in their main scientific subfield based on career-long impact until end-2022 among all scholars focusing in the same subfield and having published [≥]5 full papers. Very highly-cited was similarly defined as the top-0.2%. Science was divided into 174 fields per Science-Metrix classification. 38/146 (26%) tier 1 USA university leaders as of end-2023 were highly-cited and 5/146 (3%) were very highly-cited. The respective figures for the top-100 THE 2024 universities globally were 43/100 and 12/100. For the 13 US universities among the top-20 of THE 2024, the probability of their leader being highly-cited was lower (6/13, 46%) than the probability of a randomly chosen active full tenured professor from their faculty being highly-cited (52-77%). Across 444 board members of 14 top-10 THE 2024 universities with data, only 65 (15%) were academics, and 19 (4%) were highly-cited; academics were rare in USA university boards. Board members had predominantly careers in for-profit companies. In conclusion, leading research universities have a dearth of leaders who are high-impact researchers.

scientific communication and education↗