ArticlePLoS computational biology2016
Ten Simple Rules for Taking Advantage of Git and GitHub.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 67 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
67 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Initial recommendations for performing, benchmarking and reporting single-cell proteomics experiments.Nature methods · 2023Guideline
- Ten simple rules for executing an inherited research plan in computational biology.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementing a Version Control Platform as an Interactive Educational Framework for Bioinformatics and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2026Article
- Technical considerations and review of urinary microRNAs as biomarkers for chronic kidney disease in dogs and cats.Veterinary clinical pathology · 2025Review
- Ten simple rules for early-career researchers supervising short-term student projects.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Pyomo: Accidentally outrunning the bear.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Article
- GitHub enables collaborative and reproducible laboratory research.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- An approach to making life sciences FAIR-FAIR-DS as a tool for Aspergillus fumigatus.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules to complete successfully a computational MSc thesis project.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Reviewability and supportability: New complementary principles to empower research software practices.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for training scientists to make better software.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for scientific code review.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A how-to guide for code sharing in biology.PLoS biology · 2024Review
- Nine quick tips for open meta-analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Best practices for data management and sharing in experimental biomedical research.Physiological reviews · 2024Review
- Shifting institutional culture to develop climate solutions with Open Science.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- The O3 guidelines: open data, open code, and open infrastructure for sustainable curated scientific resources.Scientific data · 2024Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.