A Guide and Toolbox to Replicability and Open Science in Entomology.

Jacob T Wittman, Brian H Aukema
Author Information
  1. Jacob T Wittman: Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
  2. Brian H Aukema: Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Abstract

The ability to replicate scientific experiments is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Sharing ideas, workflows, data, and protocols facilitates testing the generalizability of results, increases the speed that science progresses, and enhances quality control of published work. Fields of science such as medicine, the social sciences, and the physical sciences have embraced practices designed to increase replicability. Granting agencies, for example, may require data management plans and journals may require data and code availability statements along with the deposition of data and code in publicly available repositories. While many tools commonly used in replicable workflows such as distributed version control systems (e.g., 'git') or script programming languages for data cleaning and analysis may have a steep learning curve, their adoption can increase individual efficiency and facilitate collaborations both within entomology and across disciplines. The open science movement is developing within the discipline of entomology, but practitioners of these concepts or those desiring to work more collaboratively across disciplines may be unsure where or how to embrace these initiatives. This article is meant to introduce some of the tools entomologists can incorporate into their workflows to increase the replicability and openness of their work. We describe these tools and others, recommend additional resources for learning more about these tools, and discuss the benefits to both individuals and the scientific community and potential drawbacks associated with implementing a replicable workflow.

Keywords

References

  1. Science. 2010 Aug 20;329(5994):896-8 [PMID: 20724613]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Nov 3;112(44):13439-46 [PMID: 26508643]
  3. PLoS Biol. 2011 Dec;9(12):e1001195 [PMID: 22162946]
  4. Front Neuroinform. 2018 Jan 18;11:76 [PMID: 29403370]
  5. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 May 23;1(6):160 [PMID: 28812630]
  6. Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15;3:160018 [PMID: 26978244]
  7. Toxicol Pathol. 2018 Jun;46(4):364-365 [PMID: 29628000]
  8. Ecol Appl. 2019 Jan;29(1):e01822 [PMID: 30362295]
  9. R Soc Open Sci. 2018 Jan 10;5(1):171511 [PMID: 29410855]
  10. FASEB J. 2013 Apr;27(4):1304-8 [PMID: 23288929]
  11. Science. 2015 Jun 26;348(6242):1422-5 [PMID: 26113702]
  12. PLoS Biol. 2015 Nov 10;13(11):e1002295 [PMID: 26556502]
  13. Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):aac4716 [PMID: 26315443]
  14. Curr Biol. 2014 Jan 6;24(1):94-97 [PMID: 24361065]
  15. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124 [PMID: 16060722]
  16. Am Psychol. 2006 Oct;61(7):726-8 [PMID: 17032082]
  17. PLoS Biol. 2015 Mar 13;13(3):e1002106 [PMID: 25768323]
  18. PeerJ. 2018 Feb 13;6:e4375 [PMID: 29456894]
  19. PLoS One. 2018 May 2;13(5):e0194768 [PMID: 29719004]
  20. F1000Res. 2016 Apr 11;5:632 [PMID: 27158456]
  21. PLoS Biol. 2016 Nov 10;14(11):e2000995 [PMID: 27832072]
  22. PLoS One. 2007 Mar 21;2(3):e308 [PMID: 17375194]
  23. Psychol Sci. 2012 May 1;23(5):524-32 [PMID: 22508865]
  24. PLoS Biol. 2006 May;4(5):e157 [PMID: 16683865]
  25. PeerJ. 2015 Sep 24;3:e1273 [PMID: 26421241]
  26. PLoS One. 2016 Apr 05;11(4):e0152686 [PMID: 27045593]
  27. Behav Ecol. 2017 Mar-Apr;28(2):348-354 [PMID: 29622916]
  28. Nature. 2011 May 19;473(7347):285 [PMID: 21593852]
  29. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):166-75 [PMID: 24411645]
  30. Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 25;7:1832 [PMID: 27933012]
  31. Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526(7572):187-9 [PMID: 26450040]
  32. Elife. 2019 Dec 06;8: [PMID: 31808742]
  33. Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov;22(11):1359-66 [PMID: 22006061]
  34. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20961 [PMID: 21695139]
  35. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Jan;31(1):4-7 [PMID: 26704455]
  36. Brain Behav. 2019 Jan;9(1):e01141 [PMID: 30506879]
  37. Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1:0021 [PMID: 33954258]
  38. Science. 2010 Jan 22;327(5964):393 [PMID: 20093440]
  39. PLoS One. 2009 Sep 18;4(9):e7078 [PMID: 19763261]
  40. F1000Res. 2017 Apr 27;6:588 [PMID: 28580134]
  41. Evolution. 1999 Dec;53(6):1961-1965 [PMID: 28565455]
  42. PeerJ. 2013 Oct 01;1:e175 [PMID: 24109559]
  43. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 16;13(7):e0200303 [PMID: 30011289]
  44. BMC Biol. 2015 Oct 28;13:88 [PMID: 26510635]

MeSH Term

Entomology
Research Design

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0datamaytoolsscientificworkflowsscienceworkincreasecontrolsciencesreplicabilityrequiremanagementcodereplicablelearningcanwithinentomologyacrossdisciplinesopenabilityreplicateexperimentscornerstonemethodSharingideasprotocolsfacilitatestestinggeneralizabilityresultsincreasesspeedprogressesenhancesqualitypublishedFieldsmedicinesocialphysicalembracedpracticesdesignedGrantingagenciesexampleplansjournalsavailabilitystatementsalongdepositionpubliclyavailablerepositoriesmanycommonlyuseddistributedversionsystemseg'git'scriptprogramminglanguagescleaninganalysissteepcurveadoptionindividualefficiencyfacilitatecollaborationsmovementdevelopingdisciplinepractitionersconceptsdesiringcollaborativelyunsureembraceinitiativesarticlemeantintroduceentomologistsincorporateopennessdescribeothersrecommendadditionalresourcesdiscussbenefitsindividualscommunitypotentialdrawbacksassociatedimplementingworkflowGuideToolboxReplicabilityOpenScienceEntomologycurationaccesspreprintserversreproducibility

Similar Articles

Cited By