Community annotation in biology

18Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Attempts to engage the scientific community to annotate biological data (such as protein/gene function) stored in databases have not been overly successful. There are several hypotheses on why this has not been successful but it is not clear which of these hypotheses are correct. In this study we have surveyed 50 biologists (who have recently published a paper characterizing a gene or protein) to better understand what would make them interested in providing input/contributions to biological databases. Based on our survey two things become clear: a) database managers need to proactively contact biologists to solicit contributions; and b) potential contributors need to be provided with an easy-to-use interface and clear instructions on what to annotate. Other factors such as 'reward' and 'employer/funding agency recognition' previously perceived as motivators was found to be less important. Based on this study we propose community annotation projects should devote resources to direct solicitation for input and streamlining of the processes or interfaces used to collect this input.Reviewers: This article was reviewed by I. King Jordan, Daniel Haft and Yuriy Gusev. © 2010 Mazumder et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mazumder, R., Natale, D. A., Julio, J. A. E., Yeh, L. S., & Wu, C. H. (2010). Community annotation in biology. Biology Direct, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-5-12

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free