Brooks Hanson

Making Data Maximally Available

Science is driven by data. New technologies have vastly increased the ease of data collection and consequently the amount of data collected, while also enabling data to be independently mined and reanalyzed by others. And society now relies on scientific data of diverse kinds; for example, in responding to disease outbreaks, managing resources, responding to climate change, and improving transportation. It is obvious that making data widely available is an essential element of scientific research. The scientific community strives to meet its basic responsibilities toward transparency, standardization, and data archiving. Yet, as pointed out in a special section of this issue (pp. 692–729), scientists are struggling with the huge amount, complexity, and variety of the data that are now being produced.

Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods.

Data, code, and workflows should be available and cited Over the past two decades, computational methods have radically changed the ability of researchers from all areas of scholarship to process and analyze data and to simulate complex systems. But with these advances come challenges that are contributing to broader concerns over irreproducibility in the scholarly literature, among them the lack of transparency in disclosure of computational methods. Current reporting methods are often uneven, incomplete, and still evolving. We present a novel set of Reproducibility Enhancement Principles (REP) targeting disclosure challenges involving computation. These recommendations, which build upon more general proposals from the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines (1) and recommendations for field data (2), emerged from workshop discussions among funding agencies, publishers and journal editors, industry participants, and researchers representing a broad range of domains. Although some of these actions may be aspirational, we believe it is important to recognize and move toward ameliorating irreproducibility in computational research.

Reviewing Peer Review

Peer review, in which experts in the field scrutinize and critique scientific results prior to publication, is fundamental to scientific progress, and the achievements of science in the last century are an endorsement of its value. Peer review influences more than just science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other similar advisory groups base their judgments on peer-reviewed literature, and this is part of their success. Many legal decisions and regulations also depend on peer-reviewed science. Thus, thorough, expert review of research results--without compensation--is an obligation that scientists shoulder for both science and the general public.

Journals invite too few women to referee

BIOETHICS The role of democracy in human-embryo research p.462 HISTORY How Europe shaped US research universities over 150 years p.461 POLICING Ensure crime-prediction algorithms are fair and safe p.458 This develops writing skills and expertise through exposure to other manuscripts, and fosters relationships with fellow scholars and scientific leaders. Such activities are especially important for young scientists. But most publishers do not collect gender, age or any other relevant demographic information from authors or reviewers. So biases here have been harder to pin down. Most studies of gender inequality in publishing have assigned gender to authors 3,4 but have lacked information on age. This is important because many fields have only recently seen B ias — explicit and implicit — is an important cause of the under-representation of women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 1. Women and minorities are disadvantaged in hiring or promotion decisions, awarding of grants, invitations to conferences, nominations for awards, and forming professional collaborations 2. These scholarly activities are crucial for career advancement and job retention. Another career-building activity is serving as a peer reviewer for publications. increases in participation of women. Here we present evidence that women of all ages have fewer opportunities to take part in peer review. Using a large data set that includes the genders and ages of authors and reviewers from 2012 to 2015 for the journals of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), we show that women were used less as reviewers than expected (on the basis of their proportion of membership of the society and as published authors in AGU journals). The bias is a result of authors and editors, especially male ones, suggesting Journals invite too few women to referee Jory Lerback and Brooks Hanson present an analysis that reveals evidence of gender bias in peer review for scholarly publications.

Liberating field science samples and data

Promote reproducibility by moving beyond “available upon request” Transparency and reproducibility enhance the integrity of research results for scientific and public uses and empower novel research applications. Access to data, samples, methods, and reagents used to conduct research and analysis, as well as to the code used to analyze and process data and samples, is a fundamental requirement for transparency and reproducibility. The field sciences (e.g., geology, ecology, and archaeology), where each study is temporally (and often spatially) unique, provide exemplars for the importance of preserving data and samples for further analysis. Yet field sciences, if they even address such access, commonly do so by simply noting “data and samples available upon request.” They lag behind some laboratory sciences in making data and samples available to the broader research community. It is time for this to change. We discuss cultural, financial, and technical barriers to change and ways in which funders, publishers, scientific societies, and others are responding.

Melting in feldspar-bearing systems to high pressures and the structures of aluminosilicate liquids

To test the possibility that aluminosilicate liquids exhibit pressure-induced transformations, particularly involving changes in the coordination of aluminum, we determined melting relationships for the feldspar-bearing systems NaAlSi 3 O 8 -SiO 2 , KAlSi 3 O 8 -SiO 2 , and CaAl 2 Si 2 O 8 -SiO 2 from 1 atm to 25 kbar. Albite and anorthite behave similarly in that they, and presumably liquids of these compositions, transform at high pressures to jadeite, kyanite, corundum, and other structures with aluminum in six-fold coordination, releasing SiO 2 component. This results in a large increase in the activity of SiO 2 component in the liquid (a l qz ), which is manifested by a significant decrease in the melting-point depression of albite and of anorthite by the addition of quartz at pressures above ∼15 kbar. In contrast, sanidine does not transform to denser phases at pressures below at least 100 kbar, but it melts incongruently to leucite + SiO 2 -rich liquid up to ∼ 15 kbar. This produces a relatively large a l qz and a small freezing-point depression by quartz below this pressure; the opposite holds above ∼15 kbar. These results support the concept that significant structural changes, including coordination changes in aluminum, occur in magmas in the upper mantle.

AGU's Data Policy: History and Context

Modern science is driven by data, and the implications are many: The ability to collect data more broadly and efficiently and to reuse and mine data in new ways is leading directly to new discovery, research, and understanding.

Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

Committing to Publishing Data in the Earth and Space Sciences

By Brooks Hanson, Kerstin Lehnert, and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld ! 15 January 2015 At a time when stewardship of Earth and space science data requires increased collaboration, a new initiative will join together major Earth and space science publishers, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU), with primary Earth and space science data repositories and related consortia. To mark the launch of the partnership, key publishers and repositories signed a joint statement of commitment (http://www.copdess.org/statement-of-commitment/), which makes the case for collaboration as follows:

Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin

![Figure][1] CREDITS (TOP TO BOTTOM): A. KONINGS; M. LOSOS The diversification and speciation of living organisms are the broad theme for this special section, continuing our celebration of Charles Darwins 200th birthday. The five Reviews in this section present multiple views on research on diversification at scales ranging from the macroevolutionary to the molecular. Benton (p. [728][2]) examines the extents to which biotic and abiotic factors have shaped species diversity in the fossil record. Gavrilets and Losos (p. 732) use theoretical predictions and empirical data to identify general patterns in the temporal, spatial, and genetic/morphological properties of adaptive radiation. Schluter (p. [737][3]) reviews how research on ecological speciation has shifted in focus from morphological evolution to reproductive isolation, tracing the links between Darwins ideas and current thinking. Fraser et al. (p. [741][4]) discuss the contentious area of microbial species formation. Finally, using examples from studies of genes and mutations involved in evolutionary change, Stern and Orgogozo (p. 746) illustrate how developmental biology and evolutionary theory might combine to reveal new predictive principles of genetic evolution. The special section is accompanied by evolutionary coverage in all other sections of the magazine. The News section features the second in our series of monthly “origins” essays, on the origins of art and symbolic behavior. The Commentary section includes reviews of new evolutionary books. Science Careers carries a feature on researchers in the museum world, who play a vital role in evolutionary research. In Reports, Krug et al. (p. [767][5]) reveal the legacy of the end-Cretaceous mass extinction for the subsequent diversification of bivalves [see the accompanying Perspective by Crame (p. [720][6])]. With a focus on conservation, Carnaval et al. (p. [785][7]) model spatially explicit evolutionary processes in endemic tree-frog species in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (the biodiversity hotspot that inspired Darwin during his South American landfall). Forbes et al. (p. 776) reveal how a recent host shift of the fly Rhagoletis pomonella , a model for sympatric speciation, has led to incipient speciation in a parasitoid wasp that attacks the fly. Rowland and Emlen (p. 773) show facultative male trimorphism in dung beetles, a hitherto unsuspected level of intraspecific variation. Tang and Presgraves (p. [779][8]) report a cellular and molecular mechanism of hybrid sterility, which has a key role in speciation in Drosophila . And in Science Express, there is an echo of another of Darwins central interests: Anderson et al. show that a melanism mutation has been selected for in gray wolves, most likely after a hybridization event with domestic dogs. This is a sample, not a survey. Research on speciation and diversification is itself expanding and diversifying. Evolutionary topics have been covered more frequently in Science in the first decade of the 21st century than in any previous one (and an order of magnitude more than in the years of the Modern Synthesis in the mid-20th century). This reflects not only the continuing efforts to understand and document the selective forces leading to speciation, but also how genetic research is homing in on the molecular and cellular mechanisms that enable diversification to occur. Darwin, we hope, would be thrilled. [1]: pending:yes [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1157719 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1160006 [4]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1159388 [5]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1164905 [6]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1169410 [7]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1166955 [8]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1169123