Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 1. The reference highlighted in yellow is listed under the references section, even though it has not been cited anywhere else in the article (Coritico et al. 2017).

Fig. 4 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 4. The references highlighted in orange are not listed in the References section whereas the reference in yellow, because it is recent, is listed (Ardenghi et al. 2016).

Fig. 3 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 3. Contrary to the example in Fig. 2, and despite it being published in the same journal, here "Cholnoky 1957" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (and nowhere else in the text) and referenced under the bibliographic section (Jahn et al. 2017).

Fig. 7 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 7. In this article the reference highlighted in orange indicates a reference that is only cited under taxonomic treatment and listed under the references section; in yellow a reference that is cited elsewhere thus listed under the references section; in blue are the references that should have been listed but are not in the references section (Waite R. & Allmon W.D. 2016).

Fig. 9 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 9. In this example the references in yellow are not provided in the bibliographic section, but the the one in green is, because it has been formally mentioned elsewhere in the article as a reference (Rakotondrainibe & Jouy 2016).

Fig. 10 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 10. In this article "Utinomi 1958" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (but nowhere else in the text) and referenced in the bibliographic section (Yu et al. 2017).

Fig. 5 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 5. Authorship formally presented as a reference. A. Kim et al. (2017). B. Lanteri & del Rio (2017).

Fig. 8 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 8. All authorships cited highlighted in yellow are listed in the references section even though they are not cited as a bibliographic reference anywhere else in the text (Pole & McLoughlin 2017).

Comparing Lower-concentration Dysport Treatment Targeted to the Neuromuscular Junction With Current Clinical Practice

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01682148. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 4. Publications: 1.

Global Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of Edoxaban (DU-176b) vs Standard Practice of Dosing With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00781391. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 46. Publications: 35.

Horyzons: Implementation in Clinical Practice

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04673851. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

B-CD30 + Hodgkin Lymphoma International Multi-center Retrospective Study of Treatment Practices and Outcomes

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03327571. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.

Intervention to Improve Driving Practices Among High-Risk Teen Drivers

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04317664. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 17.

Implementing Evidence-Based Mental Health Practices in Primary Care

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00996775. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.

Clinical Effectiveness of Body Fat Distribution Imaging in Real-World Practice: The BODY-REAL Study

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04763772. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.