Scientists' preferences for bioinformatics tools: the selection of information retrieval systems

In this paper, we present the findings of a survey of scientists regarding the characteristics they rate as important in their selection of bioinformatics tools. A total of 223 biologists completed a web-based questionnaire in which they assessed 39 individual characteristics of bioinformatics tools, independently rating the importance of each one in their selection of bioinformatics tools. The most highly rated characteristic was whether a tool actually accomplished what a participant needed it to do. Other highly rated characteristics included the ease of use of a tool, online availability, little or no cost, the ability to handle large data sets, and compatibility with other tools. Rated as non-important were characteristics relating to an imposed choice, such as a tool already having been purchased. Differences in ratings were found between those whose work was primarily focused on laboratory biology, and those whose work was primarily computer focused. The findings provide a set of characteristics by which bioinformatics tools can be annotated to facilitate the selection of tools. The findings also highlight the need to consider the requirements of different user groups in the design and development of information systems, rather than assuming that one size fits all.

[1]  Jeanene Light,et al.  Information-seeking behavior of basic science researchers: implications for library services. , 2010, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[2]  Andreas D. Baxevanis,et al.  The Molecular Biology Database Collection: an online compilation of relevant database resources , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  Ahmed Seffah,et al.  Beyond power: making bioinformatics tools user-centered , 2004, CACM.

[4]  W. John MacMullen,et al.  Information problems in molecular biology and bioinformatics , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Information seeking behavior of academic scientists , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Sei-Ching Joanna Sin,et al.  Perception and Selection of Information Sources by Undergraduate Students: Effects of Avoidant Style, Confidence, and Personal Control in Problem-Solving , 2007 .

[7]  Declan Butler,et al.  Are you ready for the revolution? , 2001, Nature.

[8]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Preference for electronic format of scientific journals—A case study of the Science Library users at the Hebrew University , 2005 .

[9]  Elaine Toms,et al.  Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis: An integrated information behavior and task analysis approach , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Bottomley.  Bioinformatics: guide for evaluating bioinformatic software. , 1999, Drug discovery today.

[11]  Cecelia M. Brown,et al.  Where Do Molecular Biology Graduate Students Find Information? , 2005 .

[12]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Information interaction in molecular medicine: integrated use of multiple channels , 2010, IIiX.

[13]  W. John MacMullen,et al.  Information problems in molecular biology and bioinformatics: Research Articles , 2005 .

[14]  J Franklin,et al.  Biotechnology awareness study, Part 1: Where scientists get their information. , 1991, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[15]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  A classification of tasks in bioinformatics , 2001, Bioinform..

[16]  Joan C. Bartlett,et al.  Why Choose This One? Factors in scientists' selection of bioinformatics tools , 2011, Inf. Res..

[17]  Judith Palmer,et al.  Scientists and Information: I. Using Cluster Analysis to identify Information Style , 1991, J. Documentation.

[18]  Michelle D. Brazas,et al.  The 2011 bioinformatics links directory update: more resources, tools and databases and features to empower the bioinformatics community , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[19]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  The 2012 Nucleic Acids Research Database Issue and the online Molecular Biology Database Collection , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  B. Haynes.  Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the "5S" evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. , 2006, Evidence-based nursing.

[21]  Elaine G. Toms,et al.  Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis: An integrated information behavior and task analysis approach: Research Articles , 2005 .

[22]  J. Hurd,et al.  Information-seeking behavior of health sciences faculty: the impact of new information technologies. , 1997, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[23]  Michael Zouberakis,et al.  Finding and sharing: new approaches to registries of databases and services for the biomedical sciences , 2010, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.

[24]  Dat Tran,et al.  Applying Task Analysis to Describe and Facilitate Bioinformatics Tasks , 2004, MedInfo.

[25]  Judith Palmer,et al.  Scientists and Information: II. Personal Factors in Information behaviour , 1991, J. Documentation.

[26]  A. J. Meadows,et al.  Use of information technology by biological researchers , 1995, J. Inf. Sci..

[27]  D S Ketchell,et al.  A library-based bioinformatics services program. , 2000, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[28]  Mark Hepworth,et al.  Knowledge of information behaviour and its relevance to the design of people-centred information products and services , 2007, J. Documentation.

[29]  The Importance of Biological Databases in Biological Discovery , 2006, Current protocols in bioinformatics.

[30]  A. J. Meadows,et al.  Information usage by biological researchers , 1996, J. Inf. Sci..

[31]  A. Weller,et al.  Information-seeking behavior: a survey of health sciences faculty use of indexes and databases. , 1993, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.