Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28948532›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2018

How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF).

Heidi Carmen Howard, Deborah Mascalzoni, Laurence Mabile, Gry Houeland, Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, Anne Cambon-Thomsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Standard operating procedures for biobank in oncology.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Heidi Carmen HowardCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Heidi.howard@crb.uu.se.
Deborah MascalzoniCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Laurence MabileUMR 1027, Inserm, Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Gry HouelandInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.
Emmanuelle Rial-SebbagUMR 1027, Inserm, Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Anne Cambon-ThomsenUMR 1027, Inserm, Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.

Funding

BBMRI-LPC project 313010, theme FP7--INFRA-2012-1 and is part of the actions supported by BBMRI-ADOPT project and BBMRI-ERICCHIP-ME Cost action IS1303European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) 305444 (RD-Connect)Marie Curie fellowship IEF-GA-2010-276136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the "recognition problem", the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible biobanking.

Indexed as

BiobankBioresource Research Impact FactorBioresource sharingBRIFEthicsRecognition

Identifiers

PMID28948532
PMCPMC5849702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.