4.6 Article

Investigating reproducibility and tracking provenance - A genomic workflow case study

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-017-1747-0

关键词

Reproducibility; Provenance; Workflow; Galaxy; Cpipe; Common Workflow Language (CWL)

资金

  1. MIRS Scholarship from The University of Melbourne
  2. MIFRS Scholarship from The University of Melbourne

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Computational bioinformatics workflows are extensively used to analyse genomics data, with different approaches available to support implementation and execution of these workflows. Reproducibility is one of the core principles for any scientific workflow and remains a challenge, which is not fully addressed. This is due to incomplete understanding of reproducibility requirements and assumptions of workflow definition approaches. Provenance information should be tracked and used to capture all these requirements supporting reusability of existing workflows. Results: We have implemented a complex but widely deployed bioinformatics workflow using three representative approaches to workflow definition and execution. Through implementation, we identified assumptions implicit in these approaches that ultimately produce insufficient documentation of workflow requirements resulting in failed execution of the workflow. This study proposes a set of recommendations that aims to mitigate these assumptions and guides the scientific community to accomplish reproducible science, hence addressing reproducibility crisis. Conclusions: Reproducing, adapting or even repeating a bioinformatics workflow in any environment requires substantial technical knowledge of the workflow execution environment, resolving analysis assumptions and rigorous compliance with reproducibility requirements. Towards these goals, we propose conclusive recommendations that along with an explicit declaration of workflow specification would result in enhanced reproducibility of computational genomic analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据