ReviewPLoS biology2024
A how-to guide for code sharing in biology.
Review in PLoS biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten simple rules for building a collaborative coding culture.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Implementing a Version Control Platform as an Interactive Educational Framework for Bioinformatics and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2026Article
- From policy to practice: progress towards data- and code-sharing in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Are Open Science instructions targeted to ecologists and evolutionary biologists sufficient? A literature review of guidelines and journal data policies.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2024, all biology is computational biology. Computer-aided analysis continues to spread into new fields, becoming more accessible to researchers trained in the wet lab who are eager to take advantage of growing datasets, falling costs, and novel assays that present new opportunities for discovery. It is currently much easier to find guidance for implementing these techniques than for reporting their use, leaving biologists to guess which details and files are relevant. In this essay, we review existing literature on the topic, summarize common tips, and link to additional resources for training. Following this overview, we then provide a set of recommendations for sharing code, with an eye toward guiding those who are comparatively new to applying open science principles to their computational work. Taken together, we provide a guide for biologists who seek to follow code sharing best practices but are unsure where to start.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.