The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nine simple ways to make it easier to (re)use your data
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Sharing data is increasingly considered to be an important part of the scientific process. Making your data publicly available allows original results to be reproduced and new analyses to be conducted. While sharing your data is the first step in allowing reuse, it is also important that the data be easy to understand and use. We describe nine simple ways to make it easy to reuse the data that you share and also make it easier to work with it yourself. Our recommendations focus on making your data understandable, easy to analyze, and readily available to the wider community of scientists.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“While there have been a number of recent, often domain-focused publications advocating for specific improvements in practices relating to data management and archival1,11,12, FAIR differs in that it describes concise, domain-independent, high-level principles that can be applied to a wide range of scholarly outputs.”
From The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship (2016) · cites this paper as [11]
Citations
Cites
Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate
Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 · Cited by 881
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · Cited by 18,423
Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?
Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R., & Binning, S. A. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002295 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- White, E., Baldridge, E., Brym, Z., Locey, K., McGlinn, D., & Supp, S.
- Affiliations
- Utah State University (US)
- Venue
- Ideas in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Queen's University Library
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1918-3178 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4214851230
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 23.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Ideas in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
- Keywords
- data reuse, data sharing, data availability, data documentation, reproducibility, data analysis, research data management
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
