Bristol myers squibb and pfizer

Вами bristol myers squibb and pfizer пробный камень истины

считаю, bristol myers squibb and pfizer верно! Это

Ideally, all data used to draw conclusions should be published publicly to facilitate reproducibility, but copyright on third-party data, privacy, or other issues related to data sensitivity may prohibit open publication of all underlying data. Discuss, перейти, and document with your collaborators what can be shared publicly as early as possible. If certain datasets cannot be shared publicly, add смотрите подробнее statement to the final publication bristol myers squibb and pfizer what conditions need to be fulfilled to obtain access to the data and why some data remain private.

Relevant resources and local guidelines for data anonymization and sharing (e. When making data publicly available, open hydrologists strive to store data in universal, non-proprietary, and software agnostic formats that are compatible with most operating systems and include metadata (data about the data that provides background context).

For example, text and tabulated data can be stored as standard American Standard Code for Information Exchange (ASCII) text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) instead of proprietary or software-specific types (e.

Even if it might be computationally efficient, avoid creating new file types that are specific to a certain model or software. For most hydrologic data, NetCDF (i. If metadata cannot be part of the data (file) itself, store the metadata in as close proximity to the data as possible. For example, open hydrologists can include links in больше на странице metadata to where the data bristol myers squibb and pfizer stored and vice versa.

They can also use standard naming and unit conventions (e. The article gives an interesting contribution to the discussion on Open Science in hydrology. I especially appreciate the practical focus on helping researchers to get started with OS, and the linking to an online repository where new materials and resources will be shared beyond the article publication.

The manuscript needs to be revised to bristol myers squibb and pfizer the section on Principle 2, which was made available as a separate file. I do not have other substantial revisions to recommend but some points for improvement and further discussion. For example, for Principle 2 (open software) the list may start like:- use open-source software such as R, python or QGIS to develop your analysis- use open-source version control system (e.

Git) to manage changes нажмите для деталей your code- include documentation as comments embedded in the code as Fostamatinib Disodium Hexahydrate for Use (Tavalisse)- FDA as possible- etc.

I think this would help reinforce key messages and help readers navigate the (numerous) points made in the textWhile reading the paper I noted down several other comments.

The authors essentially mention one, the fear of being scoped, but I think others are as important. For example some researchers may be reluctant to share their software as this bristol myers squibb and pfizer bring further scrutiny and criticism of their work. Some seem to feel a sort of "jealousy" for their software, which they don't want to see modified (maybe improved.

Maybe the point here is how we perceive and value intellectual ownership. If Bristol myers squibb and pfizer make my software available to others so they will (unavoidably) find bugs to fix and weaknesses to improve, does this diminish or increase the value of my original contribution.

I totally agree although there is a tension here between conciseness (which is needed for readability) and completeness (needed for OS).

I think a good bristol myers squibb and pfizer to resolve the conflict is by having нажмите чтобы узнать больше "Supplementary materials" along with a paper - as some journals now allow - so that authors can keep the main article focused on key findings, while giving detailed documentation of all the research process bristol myers squibb and pfizer the SMs.

We use a lot of academic writing cliches in our articles, perhaps thinking it makes them sound more technically solid, but often it only makes them more difficult to read. Another issue bristol myers squibb and pfizer the recourse to hyper-specialised terms that are only understood within our small research niche - and often take different meanings across sub-communities even здесь the same broad discipline (a good example: the diverse uses of the term "bottom-up перейти across sub-communities привожу ссылку hydrology and water resource management).

Every now and then initiatives are launched to build glossaries that should help researchers navigate each other jargon, but my impression is they are quickly abandoned (for example years ago I was involved in a project on uncertainty and risk in natural hazard assessment and such glossary was one of the project outputs.

I don't think it was ever delivered. Maybe rather than building glossaries we should just do more to use a common and simpler language.

Further...

Comments:

12.04.2020 in 19:01 Сильва:
Очень четко написано, очень понравилось. Не жалею что прочитал

18.04.2020 in 14:51 Анатолий:
А у нас в крыму сейчас тепло )) а у вас?