Crowd-sourcing and author submission as alternatives to professional curation
Crowd-sourcing and author submission as alternatives to professional curation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/database/baw149
复制
发表时间：
2016-12-26
影响因子：
5.8
通讯作者：
Karp, Peter D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Karp, Peter D.
我们能否通过众包管理工作或将管理工作分包给出版作者来降低数据库管理的成本？这一观点考虑了生物信息学社区在过去20年中用这两种替代专业管理的方法积累的重要经验；在为生物数据库制定新战略时，应仔细考虑这些经验。到目前为止，大量的经验证据表明，众包管理并不是生物数据库的成功模式。多个团体尝试了多种众包策划的方法，而“大众”的参与率极低，这是压倒性的结果。作者-馆长模式在提高馆长效率方面表现出更大的潜力。然而，它的局限性包括作者提交的注释的质量不确定，响应率很低(但意义重大)，到目前为止，作者管理只涉及一种或几种类型的数据的相对简单的注释形式。此外，将策展转移到作者身上可能只会重新分配成本，而不是降低成本；实际上，作者策展可能会增加成本，因为让每个策展作者了解专业策展人所知道的内容所涉及的管理费用：策展惯例、策展软件和策展程序。
Can we decrease the costs of database curation by crowd-sourcing curation work or by offloading curation to publication authors? This perspective considers the significant experience accumulated by the bioinformatics community with these two alternatives to professional curation in the last 20 years; that experience should be carefully considered when formulating new strategies for biological databases. The vast weight of empirical evidence to date suggests that crowd-sourced curation is not a successful model for biological databases. Multiple approaches to crowd-sourced curation have been attempted by multiple groups, and extremely low participation rates by 'the crowd' are the overwhelming outcome. The author-curation model shows more promise for boosting curator efficiency. However, its limitations include that the quality of author-submitted annotations is uncertain, the response rate is low (but significant), and to date author curation has involved relatively simple forms of annotation involving one or a few types of data. Furthermore, shifting curation to authors may simply redistribute costs rather than decreasing costs; author curation may in fact increase costs because of the overhead involved in having every curating author learn what professional curators know: curation conventions, curation software and curation procedures.