ArticleGigaScience2013
Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research.
Article in GigaScience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing a guideline to standardize the citation of bioresources in journal articles (CoBRA).BMC medicine · 2015Guideline
- Quantifying the impact of biobanks and cohort studies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Data Model for the Comprehensive Management of Biobanks and Its Contribution to Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey.PloS one · 2024Article
- Microbiota, type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: protocol of an observational study.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Observational
- Ensuring Effective Utilization of Biospecimens: Design, Marketing, and Other Important Approaches.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2019Article
- Establishing a distributed national research infrastructure providing bioinformatics support to life science researchers in Australia.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Current practices for access, compensation, and prioritization in biobanks. Results from an interview study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Establishing a Dedicated Lung Cancer Biobank at the University Center Hospital of Nice (France). Why and How?Cancers · 2018Article
- How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF).Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
- Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.Human genomics · 2018Article
- The author who wasn't there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks.PloS one · 2018Article
- Business Planning in Biobanking: How to Implement a Tool for Sustainability.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2017Article
- Biobankers: Treat the Poison of Invisibility with CoBRA, a Systematic Way of Citing Bioresources in Journal Articles.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2016Article
- Data integration in biological research: an overview.Journal of biological research (Thessalonike, Greece) · 2015Review
- The EuroBioBank Network: 10 years of hands-on experience of collaborative, transnational biobanking for rare diseases.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015Article
- Spanning the genomics era: the vital role of a single institution biorepository for childhood cancer research over a decade.Translational pediatrics · 2015Review
- To Share or Not to Share? A Survey of Biomedical Researchers in the U.S. Southwest, an Ethnically Diverse Region.PloS one · 2015Article
- A data standard for sourcing fit-for-purpose biological samples in an integrated virtual network of biobanks.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2014Article
- A framework for biobank sustainability.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing portion of biomedical research relies on the use of biobanks and databases. Sharing of such resources is essential for optimizing knowledge production. A major obstacle for sharing bioresources is the lack of recognition for the efforts involved in establishing, maintaining and sharing them, due to, in particular, the absence of adequate tools. Increasing demands on biobanks and databases to improve access should be complemented with efforts of end-users to recognize and acknowledge these resources. An appropriate set of tools must be developed and implemented to measure this impact.To address this issue we propose to measure the use in research of such bioresources as a value of their impact, leading to create an indicator: Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF). Key elements to be assessed are: defining obstacles to sharing samples and data, choosing adequate identifier for bioresources, identifying and weighing parameters to be considered in the metrics, analyzing the role of journal guidelines and policies for resource citing and referencing, assessing policies for resource access and sharing and their influence on bioresource use. This work allows us to propose a framework and foundations for the operational development of BRIF that still requires input from stakeholders within the biomedical community.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.