ArticleGigaScience2022
Data management strategy for a collaborative research center.
Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From manual entry to machine precision: challenges and evolution of metadata schema development in collaborative research centers.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Stakeholder perception of quality management of investigator-initiated clinical trials.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Pennsieve: A Collaborative Platform for Translational Neuroscience and Beyond.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Galaxy single-cell & spatial omics community update: Navigating new frontiers in 2025.Cell genomics · 2025Review
- Optical Neuroimage Studio (OptiNiSt): Intuitive, scalable, extendable framework for optical neuroimage data analysis.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Data management strategy for a collaborative research center.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of effective research data management (RDM) strategies to support the generation of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) neuroscience data grows with each advance in data acquisition techniques and research methods. To maximize the impact of diverse research strategies, multidisciplinary, large-scale neuroscience research consortia face a number of unsolved challenges in RDM. While open science principles are largely accepted, it is practically difficult for researchers to prioritize RDM over other pressing demands. The implementation of a coherent, executable RDM plan for consortia spanning animal, human, and clinical studies is becoming increasingly challenging. Here, we present an RDM strategy implemented for the Heidelberg Collaborative Research Consortium. Our consortium combines basic and clinical research in diverse populations (animals and humans) and produces highly heterogeneous and multimodal research data (e.g., neurophysiology, neuroimaging, genetics, behavior). We present a concrete strategy for initiating early-stage RDM and FAIR data generation for large-scale collaborative research consortia, with a focus on sustainable solutions that incentivize incremental RDM while respecting research-specific requirements.
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.