RRIDs: a simple step toward improving reproducibility through rigor and transparency of experimental methods
Open accessAbstract
With the call for more rigorous scientific reporting, authentication, and transparency from the scientific community and funding agencies, one critical step is to make finding and identifying key resources in the published literature tractable. We discuss here the use of Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) as one tool to help resolve this tricky problem in reproducibility.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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.”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [126]
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
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Reproducibility in science and the scientific literature has been a hot topic these last few years, especially with Begley’s explosive report showing that Amgen, with all of its resources, could not reproduce many of the top cancer studies (Begley and Ellis, 2012).”
BackgroundA call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
Landis, S. C., Amara, S. G., Asadullah, K., Austin, C. P., Blumenstein, R., Bradley, E. W., Crystal, R. G., Darnell, R. B., Ferrante, R. J., Fillit, H., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11556 · Cited by 1,196 · see citing works
Reproducibility crisis: Blame it on the antibodies
Baker, M. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/521274a · Cited by 830 · see citing works
Vasilevsky, N. A., Brush, M. H., Paddock, H., Ponting, L., Tripathy, S. J., LaRocca, G. M., & Haendel, M. A. (2013) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.148 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing
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., et al. (2016) · Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.23913 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationResearchers argue for standard format to cite lab resources
Singh Chawla, D. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17652 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Alm T Lundberg E Uhlén M 2016 EuPA Open Proteom 10 56 58 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euprot.2016.01.002 PMC5988587 29900101 · DOI
- Baker M 2015b Nature 527 545 551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/527545a 26607547 · DOI
- Bourne PE Lorsch JR Green ED 2015 Nature 527 S16 S17 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/527S16a 26536219 · DOI
- Collins FS Tabak LA 2014 Nature 505 612 613 24482835 PMC4058759
- Landis SC Amara SG Asadullah K Austin CP Blumenstein R Bradley EW Crystal RG Darnell RB Ferrante RJ Fillit H 2012 Nature 490 187 191 23060188 PMC3511845
- Ozyurt IB Grethe JS Martone ME Bandrowski AE 2016 PLoS ONE 11 e0146300 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146300 26730820 PMC5156472 · DOI
- Slotta C Müller J Tran L Hauser S Widera D Kaltschmidt B Kaltschmidt C 2014 J Histochem Cytochem 62 157 161 Published online November 19, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1369/0022155413515484 24255050 PMC3902098 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677 · see citing works
Progress toward openness, transparency, and reproducibility in cognitive neuroscience
Gilmore, R. O., Diaz, M. T., Wyble, B. A., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13325 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Incidences of problematic cell lines are lower in papers that use RRIDs to identify cell lines
Babic, Z., Capes-Davis, A., Martone, M. E., Bairoch, A., Ozyurt, I. B., Gillespie, T. H., & Bandrowski, A. E. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.41676 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationAI-readiness Criteria for Biomedical Data
Clark, T., Caufield, H., Parker, J. A., Al Manir, S., Amorim, E., Eddy, J., Gim, N., Gow, B., Goar, W., Hansen, J. N., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.10.23.619844 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review
Weiskirchen, R. (2026) · Medical Sciences · doi:10.3390/medsci14010025 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bandrowski, A. E., & Martone, M. E.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bandrowski, Anita E.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 434-436
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5854161
- OpenAlex
- W2346015361
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 13.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5u24da039832-02)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (U24-DA039832)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41EB019936)
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Keywords
- reproducibility, transparency
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Problem Solving, Publications, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results
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
