What I learned from How To Be A Modern Scientist by Jeff Leek

Review work with the right intent

Scientific knowledge is mainly a byproduct of innumerable work built up by millions of people ranging from data collection to its analysis. Evaluation is really important in helping establish solid concepts that can be reproducible and/or applicable in real life scenarios. The fields most of us are involved in require us to be familiar with common approaches in work analysis and assessment . The book specifically brought up the importance of reviewing for the sake of enhancing not just criticizing for the sake of criticizing. It is crucial to have the time, desire and morals to properly assess published documentations in order to enhance the work being read and allow it to flourish without it being uneventful for both the reviewer and the author. The book also suggests some methods of approach in reviewing scholarly work in an ethical manner as well. Additionally, the book made me more aware of applications used to publish work relative to specific environments ( blogs, journals , etc..)

Structure your work to push reproducibility

I work as a Research Assistant in a molecular lab. Standard operating procedures are crucial in establishing fixed guidelines when performing assays or any lab work. It gets troublesome when protocols are not well structured for the intended reader . To enhance reproducibility in any setting , It is crucial to document any work being done to further enhance productivity . The book considers the interpretation and assessment of any chore a great practice to assist in reproduction and further assessment . Documentation of any research effort is as important if not more important than the analysis or even its associated conclusion . The ability to interpret, perform or retest studies or procedures can assist in providing useful amendments for the publisher and set journals . Researchers should be expected to take into consideration the reproducibility of their work . This is crucial in their data format and analysis . Reviewers would want to effectively perform the analysis exactly as prescribed by the paper. Additionally, analysts would want to guarantee the conclusions provided by the publisher. Finally,coders should be understand that raw code does not suffice in delivering on a model’s pure meaning or its role in further analysis downstream. Authors should structure their work for the public prior to their writings while also taking into consideration the public’s sentiment for their publications post hoc.