title: Community annotation in biology.
abstract: Attempts to engage the scientific community to annotate biological data (such as protein/gene function) stored in databases have not been overly successful. There are several hypotheses on why this has not been successful but it is not clear which of these hypotheses are correct. In this study we have surveyed 50 biologists (who have recently published a paper characterizing a gene or protein) to better understand what would make them interested in providing input/contributions to biological databases. Based on our survey two things become clear: a) database managers need to proactively contact biologists to solicit contributions; and b) potential contributors need to be provided with an easy-to-use interface and clear instructions on what to annotate. Other factors such as 'reward' and 'employer/funding agency recognition' previously perceived as motivators was found to be less important. Based on this study we propose community annotation projects should devote resources to direct solicitation for input and streamlining of the processes or interfaces used to collect this input.
  
  
  METHODS
  This article was reviewed by I. King Jordan, Daniel Haft and Yuriy Gusev.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA. rm285@georgetown.edu
authors.forename: Raja
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Mazumder
authors.forename: Darren A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Natale
authors.forename: Jessica Anne Ecalnir
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Julio
authors.forename: Lai-Su
authors.initials: LS
authors.lastname: Yeh
authors.forename: Cathy H
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Wu
mesh_terms: D001695:Biology; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D003625:Data Collection; D030541:Databases, Genetic; D012108:Research Personnel; D000078329:Workforce