ArticleF1000Research2015
The Resource Identification Initiative: A cultural shift in publishing.
Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.
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
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pan-Cancer Ex Vivo Drug Screen Atlas for Functional Precision Oncology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- PRECISE TBI Model Catalog: Increasing Accessibility and Reproducibility in TBI research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- How FAIR is metadata for human pluripotent stem cells?Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Misidentified cell lines: failures of peer review, varying journal responses to misidentification inquiries, and strategies for safeguarding biomedical research.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Construction, Deployment, and Usage of the Human Reference Atlas Knowledge Graph.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Cell line authentication and validation is a key requirement forJournal of cell communication and signaling · 2025Article
- A consensus platform for antibody characterization.Nature protocols · 2025Article
- Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact.PloS one · 2025Article
- Guidelines for managing and using the digital phenotypes of pluripotent stem cell lines.Stem cell reports · 2024Review
- Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Establishing an early indicator for data sharing and reuse.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2024Article
- Big data in contemporary electron microscopy: challenges and opportunities in data transfer, compute and management.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2023Review
- A machine learning-enabled open biodata resource inventory from the scientific literature.PloS one · 2023Article
- Genetic quality: a complex issue for experimental study reproducibility.Transgenic research · 2022Review
- A High-Throughput Search for SFXN1 Physical Partners Led to the Identification of ATAD3, HSD10 and TIM50.Biology · 2022Article
- Replacing bar graphs of continuous data with more informative graphics: are we making progress?Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2022Article
- Standard metadata for 3D microscopy.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Cell line authentication: a necessity for reproducible biomedical research.The EMBO journal · 2022Article
- Centralizing neurofibromatosis experimental tool knowledge with the NF Research Tools Database.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- A decade of GigaScience: What can be learned from half a million RRIDs in the scientific literature?GigaScience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to allow humans and algorithms to identify the exact resources that are reported or answer basic questions such as "What other studies used resource X?" To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (including software and databases). RRIDs represent accession numbers assigned by an authoritative database, e.g., the model organism databases, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal ( www.scicrunch.org/resources). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are generally accurate in performing the task of identifying resources and supportive of the goals of the project. We also show that identifiability of the resources pre- and post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on reproducibility relating to research resources.
Indexed as
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.