ArticleThe Journal of comparative neurology2016
The Resource Identification Initiative: A Cultural Shift in Publishing.
Article in The Journal of comparative neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Optimizing Research Visibility: The Role of Investigators and Shared (Core) Research Resources in Publications Using RRIDs.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2025Article
- Article
- Antibody characterization is critical to enhance reproducibility in biomedical research.eLife · 2024Review
- A Standardized Nomenclature Design for Systematic Referencing and Identification of Animal Cellular Material.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- The Antibody Registry: ten years of registering antibodies.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- The Anti-Glucocorticoid Receptor Antibody Clone 5E4: Raising Awareness of Unspecific Antibody Binding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Misidentified biomedical resources: Journal guidelines are not a quick fix.International journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Minimal Information about MHC Multimers (MIAMM).Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2022Article
- Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- The Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods.iScience · 2020Article
- Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Engineered Ovarian Cancer Cell Lines for Validation of CAR T Cell Function.Advanced biosystems · 2020Article
- Semi-automated fact-checking of nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical research publications: The Seek & Blastn tool.PloS one · 2019Article
- Biomedical text mining for research rigor and integrity: tasks, challenges, directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Enhanced validation of antibodies for research applications.Nature communications · 2018Article
- Revisiting the scientific method to improve rigor and reproducibility of immunohistochemistry in reproductive science.Biology of reproduction · 2018Article
- An evaluation of the status of living collections for plant, environmental, and microbial research.Journal of biosciences · 2017Review
- Reproducibility in Computational Neuroscience Models and Simulations.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 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 identify the exact resources that are reported or to answer basic questions such as "How did other studies use 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 articles and thereby improve identifiability and scientific 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 articles prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (i.e., software and databases). RRIDs are assigned by an authoritative database, for example, a model organism database 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 (http://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 articles have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40, with RRIDs appearing in 62 different journals to date. Here we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are able to identify resources and are supportive of the goals of the project. Identifiability of the resources post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on identifiability of 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.