ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2016
Data Citation in Neuroimaging: Proposed Best Practices for Data Identification and Attribution.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Project, toolkit, and database of neuroinformatics ecosystem: A summary of previous studies on "Frontiers in Neuroinformatics".Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Review
- Searching Data: A Review of Observational Data Retrieval Practices in Selected Disciplines.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2019Review
- A data citation roadmap for scholarly data repositories.Scientific data · 2019Article
- A very simple, re-executable neuroimaging publication.F1000Research · 2017Article
- Cyberinfrastructure for Open Science at the Montreal Neurological Institute.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2016Article
- Data sharing in psychology.The American psychologistReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data sharing and reuse, while widely accepted as good ideas, have been slow to catch on in any concrete and consistent way. One major hurdle within the scientific community has been the lack of widely accepted standards for citing that data, making it difficult to track usage and measure impact. Within the neuroimaging community, there is a need for a way to not only clearly identify and cite datasets, but also to derive new aggregate sets from multiple sources while clearly maintaining lines of attribution. This work presents a functional prototype of a system to integrate Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) and a standardized metadata schema into a XNAT-based repository workflow, allowing for identification of data at both the project and image level. These item and source level identifiers allow any newly defined combination of images, from any number of projects, to be tagged with a new group-level DOI that automatically inherits the individual attributes and provenance information of its constituent parts. This system enables the tracking of data reuse down to the level of individual images. The implementation of this type of data identification system would impact researchers and data creators, data hosting facilities, and data publishers, but the benefit of having widely accepted standards for data identification and attribution would go far toward making data citation practical and advantageous.
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.