Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/265421

Building a local community of practice in scientific programming for Life Scientists

Abstract

For most experimental biologists, handling the avalanche of data generated is similar to learning how to drive on your own. Although that might be doable, it is preferable and safer to learn programming and good practices together and preferably from experienced scientists. One way to achieve this is to build local communities of practice in scientific programming by bringing together life scientists that perform code-intensive research to spread know-how and good practices. The community will make sure that, for a given researcher working for an academic institution, their capacity to conduct data-intensive research will not be arbitrarily reliant on the presence of well-trained bioinformaticians in their vicinity.\n\nIn this paper, we propose a three-step field guide for building a local community of practice in scientific programming for life scientists. The first step is organizing a Carpentries programming workshop designed for researchers new to computational biology. However, while such workshops provide an immediate solution for learning, more regular long-term assistance is also needed. Researchers need persisting, local support to continue learning and solving programming issues that may hamper their research progress. The solution we describe here is to implement a Mozilla Study Group where researchers can meet-up and help each other in a \"safe-learning atmosphere\". We describe two real-life examples of building local communities of practice: one in the Netherlands at the Amsterdam Science Park and one in the United States at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In order to help future researchers to build their own community of practice in scientific programming we discuss challenges and implemented solutions.\n\nWe believe that our local communities of practice will prove useful for other life scien-tists who want to set up similar support groups for researchers involved in scientific programming and data science.\n\nAuthor summaryIn this paper, we describe why and how to build a community of practice for life scientists that start to make more use of computers and programming in their research. A community of practice is a small group of scientists that meet regularly to help each other and promote good practices in scientific computing. While most life scientists are well-trained in the laboratory to conduct experiments, good practices with (big) datasets and their analysis are often missing. This paper proposes a field-guide on how to build such a community of practice at a local academic institution. Based on two real-life examples, challenges and related recommendations are provided. We believe that the current data deluge that life scientists will increasingly face can benefit from the implementation of these small communities. Good practices spread among experimental scientists will foster open, transparent, sound scientific results beneficial to society.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stevens, S. L. R., Kuzak, M., Martinez, C., Moser, A., Bleeker, P. M., Galland, M.. 2018-02-15. Building a local community of practice in scientific programming for Life Scientists. https://doi.org/10.1101/265421

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↗