Cited by 42Research Data Management PracticesAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPublishing and Scholarly Communication

The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing

Open access
Bandrowski, Anita, Brush, Matthew, Grethe, Jeffery S., Haendel, Melissa A, Kennedy, David N., Hill, Sean, Hof, Patrick R., Martone, Maryann E. +5 more·2016·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to identify the exact resources that are reported or to answer basic questions such as “How did other studies use resource X?” To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the Methods sections of articles and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their articles prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (i.e., software and databases). RRIDs are assigned by an authoritative database, for example, a model organism database for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central Web portal (http://scicrunch.org/resources). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine‐readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 articles have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40, with RRIDs appearing in 62 different journals to date. Here we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are able to identify resources and are supportive of the goals of the project. Identifiability of the resources post‐pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on identifiability of research resources. J. Comp. Neurol. 524:8–22, 2016. © 2015 The Authors The Journal of Comparative Neurology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.23913

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RRIDs are unique and stable, allowing unambiguous identification of reagents or tools used in a study, aiding other researchers to replicate the methods.

    “RRIDs are unique and stable, allowing unambiguous identification of reagents or tools used in a study, aiding other researchers to replicate the methods.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bandrowski, A., Brush, M., Grethe, J. S., Haendel, M. A., Kennedy, D. N., Hill, S., Hof, P. R., Martone, M. E., Pols, M., Tan, S. C., Washington, N., Zudilova‐Seinstra, E., & Vasilevsky, N.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Center for Research in Biological Systems UCSD La Jolla California USA
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Scientific Outreach Executive London UK
  • John Wiley & Sons (United States) (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • Elsevier BV (Netherlands) (NL)
Corresponding author
Bandrowski, Anita
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-11-19
Volume
524
Issue
1
Pages
8-22
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2266909730
Cited by
41
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
11.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Comparative Neurology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R24OD011883, 5u24da039832-02)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (HHSN271200577531C, U24-DA039832)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U24DK097771)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (HHSN271200800035C)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
research reproducibility, immunoglobulins, model organisms, scientific instruments, journal editorial policy
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Animals, Antibodies, Pilot Projects, Publishing, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, Internet, Models, Animal, Data Curation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review