Perspective on Data Science

Literature Cited

1. Aldwell E, Schachter C, Cadwallader A. 2018. Harmony and Voice Leading New York: Cengage Learn.
2. Am. Stat. Assoc. Undergrad. Guidel. Workgr 2014. Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate programs in statistical science Rep., Am. Stat. Assoc. Alexandria, VA:
3. Asendorpf JB, Conner M, De Fruyt F, De Houwer J, Denissen JJ et al. 2013. Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. Eur. J. Pers. 27:2108–19
   [Google Scholar]
4. Baggerly K. 2010. Disclose all data in publications. Nature 467:7314401
   [Google Scholar]
5. Baggerly KA, Coombes KR. 2009. Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 3:41309–34
   [Google Scholar]
6. Becker RA. 1994. A brief history of S. Comput. Stat. 1994:81–110
   [Google Scholar]
7. boyd d, Crawford K. 2012. Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Inform. Commun. Soc. 15:5662–79
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bressert E. 2012. SciPy and NumPy: An Overview for Developers Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly
9. Broman KW, Woo KH. 2018. Data organization in spreadsheets. Am. Stat. 72:12–10
   [Google Scholar]
10. Brooks FP Jr. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering London: Pearson
11. Carver R, Everson M, Gabrosek J, Horton N, Lock R et al. 2016. Guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education (GAISE) college report 2016. Rep., Am. Stat. Assoc. Alexandria, VA:
12. Chatfield C. 1995. Problem Solving: A Statistician's Guide Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC
13. Craig R. 2020. Why apprenticeships are the best way to learn data skills. Forbes June 18. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2020/06/18/sex-appeal-and-mystery-closing-the-data-skills-gap/?sh=3e7c18a4566a
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cross N. 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work Oxford, UK: Berg
15. Cross N. 2021. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design Chichester, UK: Wiley. , 5th ed..
16. Danks D, London AJ. 2017. Algorithmic bias in autonomous systems. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 17 C Sierra 4691–97 Red Hook, NY: Curran
    [Google Scholar]
17. De Veaux RD, Agarwal M, Averett M, Baumer BS, Bray A et al. 2017. Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate programs in data science. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 4:15–30
    [Google Scholar]
18. D'Ignazio C, Klein LF 2020. Data Feminism Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
19. Donoho D. 2017. 50 years of data science. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 26:4745–66
    [Google Scholar]
20. Goldberg P. 2014. Duke scientist: I hope NCI doesn't get original data. Cancer Lett. 41:22
    [Google Scholar]
21. Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. 2007. The declaration of Helsinki. Br. Med. J. 335:7621624–25
    [Google Scholar]
22. Grolemund G, Wickham H. 2014. A cognitive interpretation of data analysis. Int. Stat. Rev. 82:2184–204
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hardin J, Hoerl R, Horton NJ, Nolan D. 2015. Data science in statistics curricula: preparing students to “think with data.”. Am. Stat. 69:343–53
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hirschorn SR. 2007. NASA systems engineering handbook. Tech. Rep., Natl. Aeronaut. Space Admin. Washington, DC:
25. IBM 2020. The data science skills competency model. Rep., IBM Analytics Armonk, NY: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/7109RLQM
26. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. 1996. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5:3299–314
    [Google Scholar]
27. Ioannidis JP. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Med. 2:8e124
    [Google Scholar]
28. Jager LR, Leek JT. 2014. An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics 15:11–12
    [Google Scholar]
29. Knuth DE. 1984. Literate programming. Comput. J. 27:297–111
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kross S, Guo PJ. 2019. Practitioners teaching data science in industry and academia: expectations, workflows, and challenges. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–14 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kross S, Peng RD, Caffo BS, Gooding I, Leek JT. 2020. The democratization of data science education. Am. Stat. 74:11–7
    [Google Scholar]
32. Leek JT, Peng RD. 2015. Opinion: reproducible research can still be wrong: adopting a prevention approach. PNAS 112:61645–46
    [Google Scholar]
33. Leonelli S, Lovell R, Wheeler B, Fleming L, Williams H 2021. From FAIR data to fair data use: methodological data fairness in health-related social media research. Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211010310
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
34. Loukides M, Mason H, Patil D 2018. Ethics and Data Science. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly
35. Lovett MC, Greenhouse JB. 2000. Applying cognitive theory to statistics instruction. Am. Stat. 54:3196–206
    [Google Scholar]
36. McGowan LD, Peng RD, Hicks SC. 2021. Design principles for data analysis. arXiv:2103.05689 [stat.ME]
37. McKinney W. 2011. pandas: A foundational Python library for data analysis and statistics. Python High Perform. Sci. Comput. 14:91–9
    [Google Scholar]
38. Natl. Acad.xs Sci. Eng. Med 2018. Data science for undergraduates: opportunities and options Rep., Natl. Acad. Press Washington, DC:
39. Nolan D, Temple Lang D 2010. Computing in the statistics curricula. Am. Stat. 64:297–107
    [Google Scholar]
40. O'Neil C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy New York: Crown
41. Open Science Collab 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:6251aac4716
    [Google Scholar]
42. Paltoo DN, Rodriguez LL, Feolo M, Gillanders E, Ramos EM et al. 2014. Data use under the NIH GWAS data sharing policy and future directions. Nat. Genet. 46:9934–38
    [Google Scholar]
43. Parker H. 2017. Opinionated analysis development. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3210v1
    [Google Scholar]
44. Patil P, Peng RD, Leek JT. 2016. What should researchers expect when they replicate studies? A statistical view of replicability in psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11:4539–44
    [Google Scholar]
45. Peng RD. 2011. Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334:60601226–27
    [Google Scholar]
46. Peng RD, Dominici F, Zeger SL. 2006. Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163:9783–89
    [Google Scholar]
47. Peng RD, Hicks SC. 2021. Reproducible research: a retrospective. Annu. Rev. Public Health 42:79–93
    [Google Scholar]
48. R Core Team 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Statistical Software R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna:
    [Google Scholar]
49. Radcliffe N. 2015. Why test-driven data analysis?. TDDA Blog, Nov. 5. http://www.tdda.info/why-test-driven-data-analysis
    [Google Scholar]
50. Robinson E, Nolis J 2020. Build a Career in Data Science Shelter Island, NY: Manning
51. Rosenblat A, Kneese T, boyd d 2014. Algorithmic accountability Presented at The Social, Cultural & Ethical Dimensions of “Big Data,” March 17 New York, NY:
52. SAS Inst 2015. Base SAS 9.4 procedures guide. Tech. Manual, SAS Inst. Cary, NC:
53. Schoenberg A. 1983. Theory of Harmony Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
54. Schwab M, Karrenbach N, Claerbout J. 2000. Making scientific computations reproducible. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2:661–67
    [Google Scholar]
55. Thomas D, Hunt A 2019. The Pragmatic Programmer: Your Journey to Mastery Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Prof.
56. Tukey JW. 1962. The future of data analysis. Ann. Math. Stat. 33:11–67
    [Google Scholar]
57. Vesely WE, Goldberg FF, Roberts NH, Haasl DF. 1981. Fault Tree Handbook Washington, DC: Nucl. Regul. Comm.
58. Wakefield J, Shaddick G 2006. Health-exposure modeling and the ecological fallacy. Biostatistics 7:3438–55
    [Google Scholar]
59. Waller LA. 2018. Documenting and evaluating data science contributions in academic promotion in departments of statistics and biostatistics. Am. Stat. 72:111–19
    [Google Scholar]
60. Wickham H. 2011. testthat: Get started with testing. R J. 3:5–10
    [Google Scholar]
61. Wickham H. 2014. Tidy data. J. Stat. Softw. 59:101–23
    [Google Scholar]
62. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L et al. 2019. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4:431686
    [Google Scholar]
63. Wild CJ, Pfannkuch M. 1999. Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. Int. Stat. Rev. 67:3223–65
    [Google Scholar]
64. Wing JM. 2020. Ten research challenge areas in data science. Harvard Data Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.c6577b1f
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
65. Wing JM, Janeja VP, Kloefkorn T, Erickson LC 2018. Data Science Leadership Summit: summary report Tech. Rep., Natl. Sci. Found. Arlington, VA:
66. Woods R. 2019. A design thinking mindset for data science. Towards Data Science Blog, Mar. 22 https://towardsdatascience.com/a-design-thinking-mindset-for-data-science-f94f1e27f90
    [Google Scholar]