Cited by 275Research Data Management PracticesAcademic Publishing and Open AccessScientific Computing and Data Management

On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature

Open access
Vasilevsky, Nicole A., Brush, Matthew H., Paddock, Holly, Ponting, Laura, Tripathy, Shreejoy J., LaRocca, Gregory M., Haendel, Melissa A.·2013·PeerJ

Abstract

Scientific reproducibility has been at the forefront of many news stories and there exist numerous initiatives to help address this problem. We posit that a contributor is simply a lack of specificity that is required to enable adequate research reproducibility. In particular, the inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even where the science is otherwise sound. In order to better understand the magnitude of this problem, we designed an experiment to ascertain the "identifiability" of research resources in the biomedical literature. We evaluated recent journal articles in the fields of Neuroscience, Developmental Biology, Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology and General Biology, selected randomly based on a diversity of impact factors for the journals, publishers, and experimental method reporting guidelines. We attempted to uniquely identify model organisms (mouse, rat, zebrafish, worm, fly and yeast), antibodies, knockdown reagents (morpholinos or RNAi), constructs, and cell lines. Specific criteria were developed to determine if a resource was uniquely identifiable, and included examining relevant repositories (such as model organism databases, and the Antibody Registry), as well as vendor sites. The results of this experiment show that 54% of resources are not uniquely identifiable in publications, regardless of domain, journal impact factor, or reporting requirements. For example, in many cases the organism strain in which the experiment was performed or antibody that was used could not be identified. Our results show that identifiability is a serious problem for reproducibility. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to authors, reviewers, journal editors, vendors, and publishers. Scientific efficiency and reproducibility depend upon a research-wide improvement of this substantial problem in science today.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.148

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • In 2013, Vasilevsky et al. evaluated 200 papers and reported that 57% of cell lines were not uniquely identifiable.

    “In 2013, Vasilevsky, et al. evaluated 200 papers and reported that 57% of cell lines were not uniquely identifiable; the true incidence was probably much higher because the survey did not include”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results and Discussion (Cell lines; Table 1) report that 43% of cell lines were identifiable, so approximately 57% were not. But the Methods (Article selection) say the study analyzed 238 manuscripts, not 200; Table 1 shows that the cell-line findings came from 104 cell lines reported in 48 papers. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Research Resource Identifiers have been shown to decrease CCCM.

    “Research Resource Identifiers (”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results and Discussion report how often biomedical research resources were uniquely identifiable, and the Conclusions recommend stable identifiers. Neither section reports that Research Resource Identifiers decreased CCCM; searches for “CCCM” and for RRIDs reducing it found no such result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Taylor M 2013 Peer review does not mean we can trust a published paper. Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. Available at: http://svpow.com/2013/05/03/peer-review-does-not-mean-we-can-trust-a-published-paper/
  2. Thomson Reuters 2011 Journal Citation Report. http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/
  3. Wiley Online Publishing Immunology Author Guidelines. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2567/homepage/ForAuthors.html · DOI
  4. Wiley Online Publishing 2013 JCN Antibody Database. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9861/homepage/jcn_antibody_database.htm · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vasilevsky, N. A., Brush, M. H., Paddock, H., Ponting, L., Tripathy, S. J., LaRocca, G. M., & Haendel, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition (US)
Corresponding author
Vasilevsky, Nicole A.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2013-09-05
Volume
1
Pages
e148
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114224807
Cited by
271
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 2
FWCI
96.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PeerJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R24OD011883, 5r01dc005798-10)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P41HG000739, P41HG002659)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01-DC-005798, R01DC011184)
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
scientific reproducibility, model organisms, immunoglobulins, RNA interference, morpholino, cell lines, research constructs, model organism databases, biomedical literature, reporting guidelines

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