A simple idea: standard but optional review criteria for bioinformatics papers

Brad Chapman (@chapmanb on twitter) wrote and signed a nice review of my submission to the Bioinformatics Open Source Conference. In his review, he said

My only small suggestion is to include some discussion about your
reproducibility work during the talk: the Amazon AMI, documentation
and reproducible ipython workflows. This is a great model for how we
should all be doing science, and it would be interesting to hear the
wasted your time, or don't care either way? It's a lot of extra work
that I and many at BOSC will appreciate, and I wonder how the broader
scientific community has reacted.


Since he'd signed the review, I engaged him on twitter and responded:

@chapmanb And thanks for the nice comments on replication. Unf
truth: no one who doesn't already think about it cares at all. Low
impact.


and he responded

@ctitusbrown That's too bad. Love to hear your thoughts at BOSC
biology.


I responded

@chapmanb easy -- make replicability/reproducibility of science
matter for funding or publication :). best proxy right now? citations.

@chapmanb within small field of bioinformatics, there is a chance,
though: reviews. Set up an informal checklist for reviewers.


and he thought that was interesting:

@ctitusbrown Great idea: self-policing > new incentive structure.
Review-based word of honor amongst bioinfo, like
http://www.paulgraham.com/patentpledge.html


So I expanded a bit:

@chapmanb examples: "is code available? can you run code? is data
available? is format of data documented? can you run code on data?"

@chapmanb Maybe a Web checklist providing a 1-10 text output for
reviewers to copy/paste: "Totally irreplicable" => "Replication is easy".


Along that line, then, here are some initial thoughts on just such a checklist. The idea would be to put up a little JavaScript page with checkboxes linked to some copy-pastable text at the bottom. The checkboxes could be "yes", "no", or "n/a"; the text at the bottom would provide a summary, together with a tally of all the "yes" divided by the "yes" + "no" numbers.

If you were then tasked with reviewing a paper that had some bioinformatics in it, you could go to the Web page, click through the questions, and then copy/paste the text into your review. This would relieve reviewers of the burden of remember exactly what the important replication issues are, and also give them a simple reporting mechanism. If reviewers felt a question wasn't applicable or relevant they could just click N/A and it would go away.

It seems like a simple, low pressure way to start establishing some simple standards in the field. Plus, authors with just a minimal awareness of bioinformatics could go there to see what kind of information they could put in their paper. (I've already gotten positive feedback from people using my Top 10 reasons I hate your bioinformatics software blog post to figure out what they need to change.)

For example,

3. The software source code is available to readers.
6. The data format is either standard, or straightforward, or documented.
8. I successfully ran the code on the data.
9. I successfully ran the code on the data and got the results in the paper.

You could imagine copy/paste output like this:

Bioinformatics review criterion: The software is available, +1; the software license allows readers to run it, +1; the software is available, + 1; I didn't download it. The data is available, +1; the data format is straightforward, +1; I didn't download the data.

This has the nice additional features of letting reviewers self-judge their review effort, without being too judgemental about it; and providing a viral mechanism for spreading the word.

The idea can be extended to a badging system and a self-advertising system, too, if it gains any traction.

And what questions, other than these, should be added?

--titus

p.s. I could easily imagine something like this for GWAS or other fields, too. Simple, straightforward, and a guide for reviewers who may not be experts in every facet of the paper.

Posted by Casey Bergman on 2012-05-06 at 04:12.

Sign me up. I'll try to use this the next chance I get.      You might
want to add soething like the following between the current 1 &amp; 2:
"Is the software sufficiently documented to allow use by a third
party"


Posted by Brad Chapman on 2012-05-06 at 07:23.

This is brilliant. Practically, a web form on Heroku could offer up
the criteria and yes/no or 5 star style rankings for each. This
produces a copy/paste bit for reviews. Longer term if we stored the
rankings along with software names and links, this could generate
Amazon-style easy reviews for software with an average reproducibility
score.    We could hack this together at the pre-BOSC Codefest (http
://open-bio.org/wiki/Codefest_2012). I'll also try to carve out some
time at BOSC for you to present the idea, and then we can collect
feedback at a birds of a feather session.


Posted by Simon Goring on 2012-05-06 at 19:45.

This is great!  Publishers could include it just after the
acknowledgements or above the introduction making it visible and self-
reinforcing.  For the time being maybe I'll just start including it in
my own reviews &amp; publications.


Posted by David Martin on 2012-05-07 at 06:39.

This is an excellent idea. Would it be possible to persuade a journal
to take this on board as an editorial? Then it is a referencable
criteron.  &lt;finds email addresses of symapthetic journal editors
and points them in this direction&gt;


Posted by tyler on 2012-05-08 at 16:15.

+1 to @Casey's comment.     Its all good and fun to have a
reproducible paper and I agree its necessary. But if your code is
unreadable then you should be docked points.     Points for sure for
publishing and having runnable code, but to me, to get a 9 I'd have to
be able to successfully read and/or modify your code in a meaningful
(non-trivial) way without wanting to strangle the author.    Coding
standards can help with some of this. If they publish code, it should
be formatted consistently. If its in python, for example, it should
adhere to a community-authored style guide for python, etc.


Posted by tyler on 2012-05-08 at 16:17.

Also, I'd be willing to do just code review (i'm not a biologist, but
I do work at a reputable software engineering company).    I'd also be
happy to setup tools for code review, etc, and to offload the task of
code review from scientific reviewers.


Posted by Titus Brown on 2012-05-11 at 15:59.

I think the least objectionable way to proceed would be to make sure
that the minimum checklist is not requiring anything beyond what is
absolutely necessary for replication &amp; review (and hence is
required by most journals).    Anything beyond that is overreach IMO
and would cause irritation amongst the reviewed...    --titus


Posted by Bruce on 2012-05-30 at 11:53.

You are missing the most critical aspect:    Before anything else,
accepted that license that you actually may not like. Really, all the
software, data and meta-information should be in a select few
recognized licenses (BSD, GPL v2). Related, but not as important, is
that all the distributed 'package' has to be correctly licensed -