MIADE metadata guidelines: Minimum Information About a Disorder Experiment

Meszaros, B.; Hatos, A.; Palopoli, N.; Quaglia, F.; Salladini, E.; Van Roey, K.; Arthanari, H.; Dosztanyi, Z.; Felli, I. C.; Fischer, P. D.; Hoch, J.; Jeffries, C. M.; Longhi, S.; Maiani, E.; Orchard, S.; Pancsa, R.; Papaleo, E.; Pierattelli, R.; Pritisanac, I.; Viennet, T.; Tompa, P.; Vranken, W.; Tosatto, S. C.; Davey, N. E.

doi:10.1101/2022.07.12.495092

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.07.12.495092

MIADE metadata guidelines: Minimum Information About a Disorder Experiment

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An unambiguous description of an experimental setup and analysis, and the subsequent biological observation is vital for accurate data interpretation and reproducible results. Consequently, experimental analyses should be described in a concise, unequivocal, and digestible manner. The aim of minimum information guidelines is to define the fundamental complement of data that can support an unambiguous conclusion on experimental observations. In this document, we present the Minimum Information About Disorder Experiments (MIADE) guidelines to define the minimal fundamental parameters required for non-experts to understand the key findings of an experiment studying intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDRs). MIADE guidelines provide recommendations for data producers to describe the results of their experiments at source, for curators to annotate experimental data to community resources and for database developers maintaining community resources to disseminate the data. We give examples of the application of these guidelines in common use cases and describe the implementation of an update to the DisProt IDP database to allow MIADE-compliant annotation. The MIADE guidelines will improve the interpretability of experimental results for data consumers, facilitate direct data submission, simplify data curation, improve data exchange among repositories and standardise the dissemination of the key metadata on an IDP experiment by IDP data sources.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Meszaros, B., Hatos, A., Palopoli, N., Quaglia, F., Salladini, E., Van Roey, K., Arthanari, H., Dosztanyi, Z., Felli, I. C., Fischer, P. D., Hoch, J., Jeffries, C. M., Longhi, S., Maiani, E., Orchard, S., Pancsa, R., Papaleo, E., Pierattelli, R., Pritisanac, I., Viennet, T., Tompa, P., Vranken, W., Tosatto, S. C., Davey, N. E.. 2022-07-14. MIADE metadata guidelines: Minimum Information About a Disorder Experiment. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.12.495092

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

Women are particularly underrepresented as leading authors of papers in journals of the highest impact factor, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly five thousand active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers to journals of the highest impact (e.g., Science, Nature, or PNAS) andto submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men when they do submit. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) to high-impact journals because they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their "work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel" as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the "work would fit better in a more specialized journal." We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior. SignificancePublishing in high-impact scholarly journals has a significant effect on researchers careers. Our findings identify factors that affect submission to Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and explore whether there is a relationship between gender and desk rejections or submission rates. We found no relationship between gender and reported desk rejection and a relationship between gender and reported submissions, with men having a greater number of submissions. Women were more likely than men to indicate that their "work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel" for the listed prestigious journals and that they were advised against submitting to these venues. Men were more likely to indicate that the "work would fit better in a more specialized journal."

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

How do conservationists choose where to publish?

Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits most by representing a diverse range of authors, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can impact research dissemination and an authors career development. Here, we used a Discrete Choice Experiment to determine how different journal attributes impact authors choices of where to publish in conservation. We identified three demographic groups across 1038 respondents who have previously published in conservation journals, each exhibiting different publishing preferences. Only two attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively impacted journal choice, including for those in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from higher-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope, which were Open Access, and which had higher impact factors were preferable to two of the three demographic groups. However, we found journal scope and Open Access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, our findings demonstrate that different demographics experience different preferences or limitations depending on attributes such as a journals Open Access policy. However, the scarcity of published authors from low-income countries highlights further, pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations to conservation-related journals to reduce barriers to publishing and ultimately benefit conservation science.

scientific communication and education↗