ArticleBioscience2025
Where, when, and how FAIR do data from aquatic mesocosm experiments get published?
Article in Bioscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed 192 publications from two EU projects focused on aquatic mesocosm facilities for a) the number of data publications in a repository on its own and the number of data publications associated with a scientific paper, b) the time lag between mesocosm experiments and data or paper publication, and c) adherence of scientific papers to FAIR principles of data publication. More data sets were published alongside scientific papers (103) than in a data repository alone (17). The time lag between experimental end to paper publication (34.9 months) was not significantly different from the time lag between experimental end to data publication (36.7 months). Regarding FAIR principles, 32.6% of papers achieved the highest scores (7 or 8), emphasizing a high data transparency relative to other disciplines. To improve data publications, we recommend increased support (especially for interoperability) for and recognition of researchers, as well as increased efforts by journals, repositories, and funders.
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.