Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35494870›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022

A collaborative semantic-based provenance management platform for reproducibility.

Sheeba Samuel, Birgitta König-Ries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sheeba SamuelMichael Stifel Center Jena, Jena, Germany.
Birgitta König-RiesMichael Stifel Center Jena, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific data management plays a key role in the reproducibility of scientific results. To reproduce results, not only the results but also the data and steps of scientific experiments must be made findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Tracking, managing, describing, and visualizing provenance helps in the understandability, reproducibility, and reuse of experiments for the scientific community. Current systems lack a link between the data, steps, and results from the computational and non-computational processes of an experiment. Such a link, however, is vital for the reproducibility of results. We present a novel solution for the end-to-end provenance management of scientific experiments. We provide a framework, CAESAR (CollAborative Environment for Scientific Analysis with Reproducibility), which allows scientists to capture, manage, query and visualize the complete path of a scientific experiment consisting of computational and non-computational data and steps in an interoperable way. CAESAR integrates the REPRODUCE-ME provenance model, extended from existing semantic web standards, to represent the whole picture of an experiment describing the path it took from its design to its result. ProvBook, an extension for Jupyter Notebooks, is developed and integrated into CAESAR to support computational reproducibility. We have applied and evaluated our contributions to a set of scientific experiments in microscopy research projects.

Indexed as

Jupyter NotebooksOntologyProvenanceReproducibilityResearch data management platformScientific experimentsSemantic WebVisualization

Identifiers

PMID35494870
PMCPMC9044346

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.