New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Dividing up the work #3
Comments
How would you guys like to divide up the work? I'd like to just assign a category to each of us and then we can get started looking for articles. We should have a list to make sure that if there is overlap, we're capturing all aspects. |
@adamhsparks yes, good idea. Which ones are mine? how many do we have? we need to move this forward. Need a list of other variables to capture from the journals (IF, country, page charges, Open/restricted access, issues/year, presence/absence of instructions encouraging reproducibility, presence/absence of supplementary material section, etc) and from the articles. Are we going to focus on the reproducibility aspect of the analysis (data, codes, etc) or technical aspects of the methodological framework (field/lab methods described earlier by @zachary-foster)? I would vote for leaving the latter out of this work. |
I liked how you randomly selected articles here. With a few modifications, I think this is the best way to select articles. I think we should then randomly assign papers to each of us. If we each looked at a category, then the person looking could be a confounding factor with category.
I think we decided on 200
Yea, this is the main thing we need to decide on to move forward.
Fine with me. This will not be applicable to all studies anyway. So, are we specifically focusing on computational reproducibility then? Before we can divide things up, I think we need to make sure we agree on a procedure for randomly sampling articles. @adamhsparks had some code for that here that is a great start. If we are not trying to characterize specific journals (issue #2) and consider a wider range of IFs, maybe we should not take the top 20 journals, but instead a random selection of journals or the top 100 if we want to leave out really low IF journals. I have added issues that address these specific goals. Lets discuss this further there. Once they are decided, we can assign each of us our set of articles here. Paper/journals attributes: issue #5 Paper selection methods: issue #6 |
I think we should select a random subset of 200 papers including terms 'plant pathology'? |
@grunwald the original idea was to get a sample (20 articles) from all journals that focus on plant pathogens/diseases - assuming we will be targeting Phytopathology. When using Google Scholar, how to decide on what to pick in view of the huge number of results that we will get? Results are provided and ordered by google's algorithm and so biased towards impact, relevance, etc. The 20 journals are representative of geographic regions, impact, specialized/general, etc. Some correlations could be explored better perhaps with a fixed set of journals. |
@emdelponte, I like your approach given that making sure we focus heavily on traditional plant pathology journals will cover our community of peers and provide impetus to become more open. My approach would dilute this. Let's go with your list of journals ... |
Need to revise this section (
|
Oops, I already covered that here, https://github.com/openplantpathology/Reproducibility_in_Plant_Pathology/blob/master/vignettes/b2_assigning_articles.Rmd. I do need to update this document though. |
How to organise our efforts for writing this manuscript?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: