Assisiting the Review of Submitted Datasets

[johanne...@gmail.com]

This is a project currently run by EuBIC. It's goal is to define a checklist for submitted data. This checklist will then be sent to reviewers and assist them to assess the quality and completeness of the submitted dataset.

This Q/A question should be used to discuss what kind of information should be part of such a checklist / document.

First suggestions are:

• Data deposition:
  

• Is the data deposited
• Are RAW files deposited
• Are identification files deposited (in a standard format?)
• Is the species annotated
  
• Is the experimental setup defined

• Methods section:
• Software versions described
• Used search database described
• FDR mentioned (PSM vs. peptide vs. protein)
• Analysis scripts / PD workflow available

This is additionally tracked in a Google Docs document: link

[Vladimir Gorshkov]

There are some tools to deposit lab protocols (such as benchling), should this type of deposition be recommended as well?

[Johannes Griss]

That's a very good point! I wasn't aware that such software existed. I'd add it as a suggestion but not as a prerequisite.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ProteomicsQA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to proteomicsqa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/proteomicsqa/67d17445-9ff0-4cac-988f-1cb5f95a0195%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.