{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1", "title": "chem-bla-ics", "description": "Chemblaics (pronounced chem-bla-ics) is the science that uses open science and computers to solve problems in chemistry, biochemistry and related fields.", "home_page_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/", "feed_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2017/12/15/new-paper-integration-among-databases.json", "icon": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/assets/images/chem-bla-ics_logo.png", "language": "en", "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286", "_orcid": "0000-0001-7542-0286" } ], "items": [ { "id": "https://doi.org/10.59350/6e3y2-wmy66", "url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2017/12/15/new-paper-integration-among-databases.html", "title": "New paper: "Integration among databases and data sets to support productive nanotechnology: Challenges and recommendations"", "content_html": "

\"Figure\nThe U.S.A and European nanosafety communities have a longstanding history of collaboration. On both sides there are working groups,\nNanoWG and WG-F (previously called\nWG4) of the NanoSafety Cluster. I have been chair of WG4 for about three years and still active in the group, though in the past half year, without\ndedicated funding, less active. That is already changing again with the imminent start of the\nNanoCommons project.

\n\n

One of these collaborations resulted in a series of papers around data curation (see\ndoi:10.1039/C5NR08944A and\ndoi:10.3762/bjnano.6.189). Part of this effort was also an survey about the state of databases. A good\nnumber of databases responded to the call. It turned out non-trivial to analyse the results and write up a report around it with recommendations.\nThe first version was submitted and rejected, and with fresh leadership, the paper underwent a significant restructuring by\nJohn Rumble and resubmitted to Elsevier’s\nNanoImpact and now online\n(doi:10.1016/j.impact.2017.11.002).

\n\n

The paper outlines an overview of challenges and a recommendation to the community on how to proceed. That is, basically, how should projects\nlike eNanoMapper, caNanoLab, and\nNanomaterial Registry evolve to, and what might the\nEuropean Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) look like. BTW, a\nsimilar paper by Tropsha et al. was recently published the other week with a focus on the USA database ecosystem\n(doi:10.1038/nnano.2017.233).

\n\n

Have fun reading it, and if you are working in a related field, please join\neither of the two aforementioned working groups! And a huge thanks to everyone involved, particular Sandra, John, and Christine.

\n\n

References

\n
\n
Karcher, S., Willighagen, E. L., Rumble, J., Ehrhart, F., Evelo, C. T., Fritts, M., Gaheen, S., Harper, S. L., Hoover, M. D., Jeliazkova, N., Lewinski, N., Marchese Robinson, R. L., Mills, K. C., Mustad, A. P., Thomas, D. G., Tsiliki, G., & Hendren, C. O. (2018). Integration among databases and data sets to support productive nanotechnology: Challenges and recommendations. NanoImpact, 9, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.11.002 CrossRef Scholia
\n
Marchese Robinson, R. L., Lynch, I., Peijnenburg, W., Rumble, J., Klaessig, F., Marquardt, C., Rauscher, H., Puzyn, T., Purian, R., Åberg, C., Karcher, S., Vriens, H., Hoet, P., Hoover, M. D., Hendren, C. O., & Harper, S. L. (2016). How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated? Nanoscale, 8(19), 9919–9943. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5nr08944a CrossRef Scholia
\n
Powers, C. M., Mills, K. A., Morris, S. A., Klaessig, F., Gaheen, S., Lewinski, N., & Ogilvie Hendren, C. (2015). Nanocuration workflows: Establishing best practices for identifying, inputting, and sharing data to inform decisions on nanomaterials. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 6, 1860–1871. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.189 CrossRef Scholia
\n
Tropsha, A., Mills, K. C., & Hickey, A. J. (2017). Reproducibility, sharing and progress in nanomaterial databases. Nature Nanotechnology, 12(12), 1111–1114. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.233 CrossRef Scholia
\n
", "summary": "The U.S.A and European nanosafety communities have a longstanding history of collaboration. On both sides there are working groups, NanoWG and WG-F (previously called WG4) of the NanoSafety Cluster. I have been chair of WG4 for about three years and still active in the group, though in the past half year, without dedicated funding, less active. That is already changing again with the imminent start of the NanoCommons project.", "image": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/assets/images/1-s2.0-S2452074817301398-gr1.png", "date_published": "2017-12-15T00:00:00+00:00", "date_modified": "2017-12-15T00:00:00+00:00", "tags": ["nanosafety","enanomapper","nanocommons","eunsc"], "_references": [ { "url": "https://doi.org/10.1039/C5NR08944A", "doi": "10.1039/C5NR08944A" } , { "url": "https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.189", "doi": "10.3762/bjnano.6.189" } , { "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IMPACT.2017.11.002", "doi": "10.1016/J.IMPACT.2017.11.002" } , { "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.233", "doi": "10.1038/nnano.2017.233" } ], "_funding": [{"award": { "title" : "eNanoMapper - A Database and Ontology Framework for Nanomaterials Design and Safety Assessment", "acronym" : "eNanoMapper", "uri" : "cordis.project:604134" }, "funder": { "name": "European Commission", "ror": "00k4n6c32" } }], "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286" } ] } ] }