How Will arxiv.org Work for a Large Consortium Project?

A reader in Casey Bergman’s blog asked -

Interesting to think how the arXiv would work for consortiums. Youd probably need reasonable buy in from members, otherwise theyd be some serious disagreement.

Call us visionaries (or physics drop-out :)), because we tried to introduce arxiv.org to Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium in 2007 (link, link). The time was not ripe, and the community ignored our efforts.

Here was what we thought would be the potential use of arxiv.org for a large community project. As explained in previous commentary, we noticed frictions between various groups, who were collaborators as well as competitors in the project. They were eager to share information with each other, but also had fear that they could get scooped by others.

Typically, consortium managers resolve conflicts in such situations by dividing territories, and asking each group to look into one or other aspect of the genome. Also, consortium managers designate themselves as the central hub trying to understand everyone’s work.

You sometimes refer to yourself as ENCODEs cat herder in chief. How many people were involved in the consortium, and what was it like coordinating such a massive effort?

This is very much a different way of doing science. I am only one of 400 investigators, and I am the person who is charged to make sure that the analysis was delivered and that it all worked out. But I had to draw on the talents of many, many people.

So Im more like the cat herder, the conductor, necessarily, than someone whose brain can absorb all of this. It comes back to that sense that its a bit of a jungle out there.

We thought that was a bit high-school like. Firstly, it is suboptimal to divide territories. For example, our group was investigating the transcriptome and we wanted to check the GC-content of regions, where the expressed genes were located. However, another group was designated to look at the nucleotide- distribution of the genome and they thought we were stepping on their territories.

Secondly, having a centralized point of contact means the groups do not share everything with each other. They talk to one all-knowing person, who figures out who should talk to whom.

Arxiv.org can dramatically improve the collaborative power of a consortium project by letting everyone share with each other, and also remove the fear of getting scooped in the process of sharing.

Needless to say nobody liked our ideas, and we did not bother to join any more consortium project since 2007.