↓ Skip to main content

Experiences with workflows for automating data-intensive bioinformatics

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 523)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
54 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experiences with workflows for automating data-intensive bioinformatics
Published in
Biology Direct, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13062-015-0071-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ola Spjuth, Erik Bongcam-Rudloff, Guillermo Carrasco Hernández, Lukas Forer, Mario Giovacchini, Roman Valls Guimera, Aleksi Kallio, Eija Korpelainen, Maciej M Kańduła, Milko Krachunov, David P Kreil, Ognyan Kulev, Paweł P. Łabaj, Samuel Lampa, Luca Pireddu, Sebastian Schönherr, Alexey Siretskiy, Dimitar Vassilev

Abstract

High-throughput technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, have turned molecular biology into a data-intensive discipline, requiring bioinformaticians to use high-performance computing resources and carry out data management and analysis tasks on large scale. Workflow systems can be useful to simplify construction of analysis pipelines that automate tasks, support reproducibility and provide measures for fault-tolerance. However, workflow systems can incur significant development and administration overhead so bioinformatics pipelines are often still built without them. We present the experiences with workflows and workflow systems within the bioinformatics community participating in a series of hackathons and workshops of the EU COST action SeqAhead. The organizations are working on similar problems, but we have addressed them with different strategies and solutions. This fragmentation of efforts is inefficient and leads to redundant and incompatible solutions. Based on our experiences we define a set of recommendations for future systems to enable efficient yet simple bioinformatics workflow construction and execution. Reviewers This article was reviewed by Dr Andrew Clark.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
France 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 178 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 68 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Student > Master 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 19 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 28%
Computer Science 49 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 21%
Engineering 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 24 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#902,461
of 24,666,614 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#18
of 523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,966
of 271,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,666,614 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.