Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39360219›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2024

Daily life in the Open Biologist's second job, as a Data Curator.

Livia C T Scorza, Tomasz Zieliński, Irina Kalita, Alessia Lepore, Meriem El Karoui, Andrew J Millar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Livia C T ScorzaCentre for Engineering Biology and School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3BF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0145-3592
Tomasz ZielińskiCentre for Engineering Biology and School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3BF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0194-5706
Irina KalitaCentre for Engineering Biology and School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3BF, UK.
Alessia LeporeCentre for Engineering Biology and School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3BF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9644-521X
Meriem El KarouiCentre for Engineering Biology and School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3BF, UK.
Andrew J MillarCentre for Engineering Biology and School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3BF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1756-3654

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Data reusability is the driving force of the research data life cycle. However, implementing strategies to generate reusable data from the data creation to the sharing stages is still a significant challenge. Even when datasets supporting a study are publicly shared, the outputs are often incomplete and/or not reusable. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles were published as a general guidance to promote data reusability in research, but the practical implementation of FAIR principles in research groups is still falling behind. In biology, the lack of standard practices for a large diversity of data types, data storage and preservation issues, and the lack of familiarity among researchers are some of the main impeding factors to achieve FAIR data. Past literature describes biological curation from the perspective of data resources that aggregate data, often from publications. Methods: Our team works alongside data-generating, experimental researchers so our perspective aligns with publication authors rather than aggregators. We detail the processes for organizing datasets for publication, showcasing practical examples from data curation to data sharing. We also recommend strategies, tools and web resources to maximize data reusability, while maintaining research productivity. Conclusion: We propose a simple approach to address research data management challenges for experimentalists, designed to promote FAIR data sharing. This strategy not only simplifies data management, but also enhances data visibility, recognition and impact, ultimately benefiting the entire scientific community.

Indexed as

accessibilitybiological datadata curationdatasetsdata sharingFAIRmetadata.Open sciencerepositoriesreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID39360219
PMCPMC11445645

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.