Best practices for building and curating databases for comparative analyses

Author:

Schwanz Lisa E.1ORCID,Gunderson Alex2ORCID,Iglesias-Carrasco Maider3ORCID,Johnson Michele A.4ORCID,Kong Jacinta D.5ORCID,Riley Julia6ORCID,Wu Nicholas C.7ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, and the School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2035, Australia

2. School of Science and Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA

3. Ecology and Evolution of Sexual Interactions group, Doñana Biological Station-CSIC, Sevilla 41001, Spain

4. Department of Biology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA

5. School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

6. Department of Biology, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, E4L 1E4, Canada

7. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Abstract

ABSTRACT Comparative analyses have a long history of macro-ecological and -evolutionary approaches to understand structure, function, mechanism and constraint. As the pace of science accelerates, there is ever-increasing access to diverse types of data and open access databases that are enabling and inspiring new research. Whether conducting a species-level trait-based analysis or a formal meta-analysis of study effect sizes, comparative approaches share a common reliance on reliable, carefully curated databases. Unlike many scientific endeavors, building a database is a process that many researchers undertake infrequently and in which we are not formally trained. This Commentary provides an introduction to building databases for comparative analyses and highlights challenges and solutions that the authors of this Commentary have faced in their own experiences. We focus on four major tips: (1) carefully strategizing the literature search; (2) structuring databases for multiple use; (3) establishing version control within (and beyond) your study; and (4) the importance of making databases accessible. We highlight how one's approach to these tasks often depends on the goal of the study and the nature of the data. Finally, we assert that the curation of single-question databases has several disadvantages: it limits the possibility of using databases for multiple purposes and decreases efficiency due to independent researchers repeatedly sifting through large volumes of raw information. We argue that curating databases that are broader than one research question can provide a large return on investment, and that research fields could increase efficiency if community curation of databases was established.

Funder

Natural Sciences Engineering Research Council of Canada

Andalusian Government

Publisher

The Company of Biologists

Subject

Insect Science,Molecular Biology,Animal Science and Zoology,Aquatic Science,Physiology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cited by 8 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3