Existing Literature · Record 5

Ten Simple Rules for Getting Help from Online Scientific Communities

Giovanni M. Dall'Olio, Jacopo Marino, Michael Schubert, Kevin L. Keys, Melanie I. Stefan, Colin S. Gillespie, Pierre Poulain, Khader Shameer, Robert Sugar, Brandon M. Invergo, Lars J. Jensen, Jaume Bertranpetit, Hafid Laayouni

PLoS Computational Biology2011Source: crossrefL4 · Ready for evaluationComplete · ready for review0 citations DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002202View open PDF
Visual content requires source verification

The text and sections are usable, but figures or tables were not extracted. Review the connected PDF before relying on visual evidence.

Full-text reading

Parsed chapter content from the source PDF. Open one chapter at a time.

Sections

Machine-extracted from the source PDF
Introduction
Citation: Dall’Olio GM, Marino J, Schubert M, Keys KL, Stefan MI, et al. (2011) Ten Simple Rules for Getting Help from Online Scientific Communities. PLoS Comput Biol 7(9): e1002202. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002202 Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America Copyright:  2011 Dall’Olio et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, Funding: GMD is supported by grants SAF-2007-63171 and BFU2010-19443 (subprogram BMC) awarded by Ministerio de Educacio´n y Ciencia (Spain), the Direccio´ General de Recerca, Generalitat de Catalunya (Grup de Recerca Consolidat 2009 SGR 1101) to JB. KLK is supported by a 2010–2011 Fulbright student research grant to Spain. LJJ is supported by a donation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. JM is supported by funding from the University of Zurich. MIS is supported by a long-term fellowship from EMBO. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Authors and related literature

Authors

IdFull nameOrcidCurrent affiliationAffiliationAuthor orderInstitutions
12Giovanni M. Dall'Olio——[]1[]
13Jacopo Marino——[]2[]
14Michael Schubert——[]3[]
15Kevin L. Keys——[]4[]
16Melanie I. Stefan——[]5[]
17Colin S. Gillespie——[]6[]
18Pierre Poulain——[]7[]
19Khader Shameer——[]8[]
20Robert Sugar——[]9[]
21Brandon M. Invergo——[]10[]
22Lars J. Jensen——[]11[]
23Jaume Bertranpetit——[]12[]
24Hafid Laayouni——[]13[]

Similar Literature

No similar-paper recommendations are available.

Reader evaluations (10)

Reader Evaluations

Registered readers · human judgment
Evaluator E-00015Aug 22, 20263.15

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 2Rigor 3Evidence 4Significance 5Reproducibility 2Clarity 3
Evaluator E-00014Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 5Rigor 2Evidence 3Significance 4Reproducibility 5Clarity 2
Evaluator E-00013Aug 22, 20263.75

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 4Rigor 5Evidence 2Significance 3Reproducibility 4Clarity 5
Evaluator E-00012Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 3Rigor 4Evidence 5Significance 2Reproducibility 3Clarity 4
Evaluator E-00011Aug 22, 20263.15

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 2Rigor 3Evidence 4Significance 5Reproducibility 2Clarity 3
Evaluator E-00010Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 5Rigor 2Evidence 3Significance 4Reproducibility 5Clarity 2
Evaluator E-00009Aug 22, 20263.75

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 4Rigor 5Evidence 2Significance 3Reproducibility 4Clarity 5
Evaluator E-00008Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 3Rigor 4Evidence 5Significance 2Reproducibility 3Clarity 4
Evaluator E-00007Aug 22, 20263.15

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 2Rigor 3Evidence 4Significance 5Reproducibility 2Clarity 3
Evaluator E-00006Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 5Rigor 2Evidence 3Significance 4Reproducibility 5Clarity 2