Live data from Hacker News

Redesigning the Scientific Paper

theatlantic.com

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#81
post #21
post #9

> These programs tend to be both so sloppily written and so central to the results that it’s contributed to a replication crisis, or put another way, a failure of the paper to perform its most basic task: to report what you’ve actually discovered, clearly enough that someone else can discover it for themselves. This is the crux of the of the problem IMHO - at least for the fields I study (AI/ML). Replicating the resu…

I've had a paper peer reviewed. It was ultimately rejected but I can't help but suspect that by making all my code publicly available, I hurt my chances of publication. The reviewers comments were about my coding style, my choice of build tool (I didn't use make, but something else which is just as easy to use), the choice of C vs C++... It's like best practices for computer security -- always strive to minimize the…

Nah, they probably used your code to scoop you.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#82
Interesting timing: for the last two years I have worked for a research group headed by Sten Linnarsson at the Karolinska Institute[0]. I was specifically hired to build a data browser for a new file format for storing the ever-growing datasets[1][2][3]. The viewer is an SPA specialised in exploring the data on the fly, doing as much as possible client side while minimising the amount of data being transferred, and staying as data-agnostic as possible.

Linnarsson's group just pre-published a paper cataloguing all cell types in the mouse brain, classifying them based on gene expression[4][5]. The whole reason that I was hired was as an "experiment" to see if there was a way to make the enormous amount of data behind it more accessible for quick explorations than raw dumps of data. The viewer uses a lot of recent (as well as slightly-less-recent-but-underused) browser technologies.

Instead of downloading the full data set (which is typically around 28k genes by N cells, where N is in the tens to hundreds of thousands), only the general metadata plus requested genes are downloaded in the form of compressed JSON arrays containing raw numbers or strings. The viewer converts them to Typed Arrays (yes, even with string arrays) and then renders nearly everything on the fly client-side. This also makes it possible to interactively tweak view settings[6]. Because the viewer makes almost no assupmtions of what the data represents, we recently re-used the scatterplot view to display individual cells in a tissue section[7].

Furthermore, this data is stored off-line through IndexedDB, so repeat viewings of the same dataset or specific genes within it does not require re-downloading the (meta)data. This minimises data transfer even further, and makes the whole thing a lot snappier (not to mention cheaper to host, which may matter if you're a small research group). The only reason it isn't completely offline-first is that using service workers is giving me weird interactions with react-router. Being the lone developer I have to prioritise other, more pressing bugs.

In the end however, the viewer is merely a complement to the full catalogue, which is set up with a DocuWiki[8]. No flashy bells and whistles there, but it works. For example, one can look up specific marker genes. it just uses a plugin to create a sortable table, which is established, stable technology that pretty much comes with the DocuWiki[9][10]. The taxonomy tree is a simple static SVG above it. Since the expression data is known client-side to generate the table dynamically, we only need a tiny bit of JavaScript to turn that into an expression heatmap underneath the taxonomy tree. Simple and very effective, and it probably even works in IE8, if not further back. Meanwhile, I got myself into an incredibly complicated mess writing a scatterplotter with low-level sprite rendering and blitting and hand-crafted memoisation to minimise redraws[11].

Personally, I think there isn't enough praise for the pragmatic DocuWiki approach. My contract ends next week. I intend to keep contributing to the viewer, working out the (way too many) rough edges and small bugs that remain, but it won't be full-time. I hope someone will be able to maintain and develop this further. I think the DocuWiki has a better chance of still being on-line and working ten years from now.

[0] http://linnarssonlab.org/

[1] http://loompy.org/

[2] https://github.com/linnarsson-lab/loom-viewer

[3] http://loom.linnarssonlab.org/

[4] https://twitter.com/slinnarsson/status/981919808726892545

[5] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/04/05/294918

[6] https://imgur.com/f6GpMZ1

[7] http://loom.linnarssonlab.org/dataset/cells/osmFISH/osmFISH_..., https://i.imgur.com/a7Mjyuu.png

[8] http://mousebrain.org/doku.php?id=start

[9] http://mousebrain.org/doku.php?id=genes:aw551984

[10] http://mousebrain.org/doku.php?id=genes:actb

[11] https://github.com/linnarsson-lab/loom-viewer/blob/master/cl...

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#83
Aside from my other comment, I think that any discussion about the scientific paper and the way knowledge is communicated is incomplete without a mention of Nick Sousanis' Unflattening. It is a thesis for a Doctor of Education degree about this very topic, that practises what it preaches by being written as a comic book.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674744431

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#84
How well does it work to version control Mathematica notebooks in git? For example, is it possible to get meaningful textual diffs when comparing two versions of a mathematica notebook, and can git compress them enough to keep repo size down?

With iPython this is also an issue -- tracking code in JSON is much less clean than tracking code in text files.

It's interesting that Mathematica and iPython both left code-as-plain-text behind as a storage format. I wonder if it would have been possible to come up with a hybrid solution, i.e. retain plain-text code files but with a serialized data structure (JSON-like, or binary) as the glue.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#85
post #9

> These programs tend to be both so sloppily written and so central to the results that it’s contributed to a replication crisis, or put another way, a failure of the paper to perform its most basic task: to report what you’ve actually discovered, clearly enough that someone else can discover it for themselves. This is the crux of the of the problem IMHO - at least for the fields I study (AI/ML). Replicating the resu…

I'm in opto/bio/eng. I think you misunderstand the 'real' reason for research papers as they currently stand: Money. It's a bit of a path, but I'll try and explain.

In the US at least, research costs a LOT of cash. Many departments are chronically underfunded. In my state, the university only gets ~10% of it's funding from the state-house. The rest is grants. The only real writers of grants are the professor corps. So, departments look to the professors to fund the enterprise. Some of my advisers spent about 40 hours per week just on grant writing, neglecting the teaching and research hours required alongside. It is not a fun/good job. So most/all research is done by students, mostly PhD students, with little to no input from their advisers, and it's a stressful mess. As a result, most research is, well, amateur. Stats get mangled, code quality is non-existent, rats get loose, etc. Yes, yes, none of that 'actually' happens, but for real? It's a shitshow.

So, where does that leave the PhD student that has been in the program for 7 years? They may have one first author paper, if that, a thumb-drive filled with nearly unreadable 'data', and a dozen failed experiments. Failed experiments don't get published, mostly because science is hard and doing all the controls to say that you have a genuine/real failure is much harder. So the professor, now running into a very firm deadline to graduate the student via the grad office, must rush and publish something, just to get the student to leave. The professor's track record in graduating students is part of their evaluation, as well as their publication record. Hence, the unreadable graduation paper; one of two types of unreadable paper.

This paper is a targeted missile that is meant to do one thing: get the student off the payroll. It is not meant to be good, or a viable piece of science. It is never meant to be replicated. It is trying to be obtuse. It is there just to graduate a student, nothing more, nothing less.

The other class of unreadable paper is the turf-war paper. These papers are also meant to be just readable enough, but not so much as to be repeatable. The reason is that the paper is a 'big' paper. What is published is meant to stake a claim in a 'big' area of the field. Hopefully this will guarantee more funding in the future as now that professor is a 'big' player in it. Hopefully no others can report that it is unrepeatable before the next grant comes in. The trick is make certain that the paper exposes just enough of the experimental design as to truly 'claim' the new big thing, but not enough that you can replicate at all. Karl Disseroth is infamous for this in the bio world. The paper creates jazz, but safeguards the turf of the lab from any other lab that may want to replicate it independently; they need the first lab to re-do it, and they must come with funding in hand.

So, to sum up: papers are weapons. One type is the missile that causes a student to graduate. The other is a trap with a golden idol on it.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#86
post #85
post #9

> These programs tend to be both so sloppily written and so central to the results that it’s contributed to a replication crisis, or put another way, a failure of the paper to perform its most basic task: to report what you’ve actually discovered, clearly enough that someone else can discover it for themselves. This is the crux of the of the problem IMHO - at least for the fields I study (AI/ML). Replicating the resu…

I'm in opto/bio/eng. I think you misunderstand the 'real' reason for research papers as they currently stand: Money. It's a bit of a path, but I'll try and explain. In the US at least, research costs a LOT of cash. Many departments are chronically underfunded. In my state, the university only gets ~10% of it's funding from the state-house. The rest is grants. The only real writers of grants are the professor corps. S…

This is spot on. I was surprised the first time I worked at a major university just how toxic the environment was and how little mindshare was spent towards actually contemplating compelling hypotheses / experiments. It was much less of the ideal "life of the mind" I thought it would be and much more like show business / social climbing, minus the widespread name recognition and glamor.

I was already on the way out of science when I started working at that job, but the publish or perish culture really accelerated my departure.

It's also interesting how the current incentives really warp the incentive structures not just at big research universities, but also at small liberal arts colleges. I grew up as a fac brat, and so I've been able to tune into a lot of dialogue about the latest crop of new professors coming in to replace older professors as they retire, and a lot of the older professors are genuinely shocked at how little emphasis the newer professors place on teaching (traditionally what SLACs have focused on) compared to research. Even at schools with around 2000 students, new professors are demanding generous starter packages that no one would really have thought to ask for in the 70s.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#87
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also work in AI/ML field (deep learning), and usually I don't care if the paper has corresponding code or not. I read papers to find good ideas. If I find it, I can implement it myself. I rarely need more than a couple of days to test an idea (e.g. Hinton's capsules model took 4-5 hours to implement). The benefits of own implementation should be obvious. If something important is missing or does not make sense, I u…

What your preferred software to implement these? A framework like chainer, or purely in numpy/MATLAB?

Tensorflow or Pytorch. Plain Numpy for quick prototyping/testing. Sometimes have to write/modify Cuda kernels.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#88

I used to work as a software developer for a research institute. I wanted to open source our research code and tools, and the department head was in favour of it because it would raise the profile of the research unit. There were two forces working against us. First many of the grants came from governments, and a stipulation was that we would devote some resources to helping startups commercialise the output of the r…

> Papers are the currency of academics, and all metrics for grants and careers hinge off it. It hinders cooperation and fosters a cynical environment of trying to game the metrics to secure a future in academics.

I honestly can't contemplate who in their right mind would want "a future in academics" where academia is defined as a constant stream of metric gaming rather than actually accomplishing what you originally set out to accomplish.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#89
post #35
post #3

We need GitHub for science. But that's not enough. It needs to be combined with a mechanism for peer-review and publishing that funding agencies will find acceptable--that's the key.

I would really like the Open Science Framework to become just that (with other tools like OpenML as needed). But it requires people to actually work on it to happen...

I really want to like OSF, but I feel like they sometimes waste time on pointless efforts that go nowhere instead of working on substantive features that scientists would actually use. In particular I found their effort to create badges for open science to be misdirected at best, since credentials of any kind don't really count for anything unless they're backed by an authority that's seen as legitimate universally in a field.

I also feel a bit weird about badging in science in general, since most of the most passionate people I know in science are intrinsically motivated enough that I could never really see them really concerning themselves with such carrots unless it meant that they'd get more funds to do more of what they find fun.

Re: Redesigning the Scientific Paper

#90
post #3

We need GitHub for science. But that's not enough. It needs to be combined with a mechanism for peer-review and publishing that funding agencies will find acceptable--that's the key.

I think that's sort of what services like Texture [1], ShareLaTeX [2], and Authorea [3] are trying to become (at least for papers). For code GitHub for science is generally the same as GitHub for everyone else.

[1] https://elifesciences.org/labs/8de87c33/texture-an-open-scie...

[2] https://www.sharelatex.com/

[3] https://www.authorea.com/

Post reply on HN