Find research datasets worth reusing

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).

Fig. 14 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy

Fig. 14. Scholar production costs. Four steps are needed to produce scholar papers, of which three are publicly-funded. In the first scenario, the library pays back the final product by subscription to the publisher while in the second, the publishing costs are supported by the publisher (commercial or institutional) and then the access is free for the reader.

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. 12 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy

Fig. 12. Here "Bleeker, 1857" is considered by the authors as a bibliographical reference and listed as such under the references section although it has not been cited elsewhere in the text (Tucker et al. 2016).

Fig. 11 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy

Fig. 11. Underlined in blue are the references linked to the bibliography (considered as such because they are cited in an unambiguous way elsewhere in the text) whereas those in black are not linked because they are not listed in the bibliography (Foley 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. 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. 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).

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2024View details →

Best practices for evaluating IRFL approaches - Supplemental material

Information retrieval fault localization (IRFL) is a popular research field and many IRFL approaches have been proposed recently. Unfortunately, the evaluation of some of these IRFL approaches is often too simplistic, which can cause an overestimation of performance of these approaches. For this reason, we discuss evaluation pitfalls and problems in our paper "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2025.112342">Best practices for evaluating IRFL approaches</a>". To support our claim of the poor status quo of current evaluation practices in some research papers, we have performed a literature survey on 135 papers. This repository contains the data that we have extracted from these papers and our evaluation script.

dryad32/100

Data from: Predicting range expansion of invasive species: pitfalls and best practices for obtaining biologically realistic projections

Species Distribution Models (SDM) for seven invasive plant species in North America. Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to forecast potential range expansion of invasive species. However, invasive species occurrence datasets often have spatial biases that may violate key SDM assumptions. We examined alternative methods of spatial bias correction and multiple methods for model evaluation for seven invasive plant species. Species SDMs include Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), Wild Parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia virgata), Common Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), Brown Knapweed (Centaurea jacea), Black Swallowwort (Vincetoxicum nigrum), and Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica).

opencc-zeroAug 2021View details →

dryad32/100

Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: Toward best practices for data usability and accessibility

The emerging field of environmental DNA (eDNA) research lacks universal guidelines for ensuring data produced are FAIR–findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable–despite growing awareness of the importance of such practices. In order to better understand these data usability challenges, we systematically reviewed 60 peer-reviewed articles conducting a specific subset of eDNA research: metabarcoding studies in marine environments. For each article, we characterized approximately 90 features across several categories: general article attributes and topics, methodological choices, types of metadata included, and availability and storage of sequence data. Analyzing these characteristics, we identified several barriers to data accessibility, including a lack of common context and vocabulary across the articles, missing metadata, supplementary information limitations, and a concentration of both sample collection and analysis in the United States. While some of these barriers require significant effort to address, we also found many instances where small choices made by authors and journals could have an outsized influence on the discoverability and reusability of data. Promisingly, articles also showed consistency and creativity in data storage choices as well as a strong trend toward open access publishing. Our analysis underscores the need to think critically about data accessibility and usability as marine eDNA metabarcoding studies, and eDNA projects more broadly, continue to proliferate.

opencc-zeroFeb 2023View details →

opennotspecifiedDec 2021View details →

TA B L E 2 Identified R packages useful for taxonomic name harmonization. Square brackets indicate supplementary references in Harmonizing taxon names in biodiversity data: A review of tools, databases and best practices

TA B L E 2 Identified R packages useful for taxonomic name harmonization. Square brackets indicate supplementary references

opencc-by-4.0May 2023View details →

Exposure to a Vitamin D Best Practices Toolkit, Model, & E-Tools Increases Knowledge, Confidence, and Translation of Research to Public Health and Practice

Preventable vitamin D deficiency (VDD) is a global health concern. Prevention, early detection, and treatment of vitamin D deficiency aligning with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D recommendations of 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L) by an international panel of 48 vitamin D researchers would result in significant health benefits and cost-savings to individuals and society. However, research shows healthcare professionals lack knowledge and confidence in vitamin D best practices. A vitamin D toolkit was developed, including a model for decision-making support, e-tools, and accompanying resources, and implemented using an online, asynchronous learning management system. The pre-, post-test, and follow-up survey study design aimed to increase nurses’ and dietitians' levels of vitamin D knowledge, confidence, translation of evidence into spheres of practice and influence, and identify translation barriers. Toolkit completion increased participants’ (n=119) knowledge, 31% to 65% (p <0.001) and confidence 2.0 to 3.3 (p<0.001) on a scale of 1-5. Respondents reported using the model (100%) as a framework successfully guiding the translation of vitamin D knowledge into their sphere of influence or practice (94%) and identified translation barriers.  The toolkit should be included in interdisciplinary continuing education, research/quality improvement initiatives, healthcare policy, and institutions of higher learning to increase movement of research to practice.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

Effects of a Platelet Transfusion Best Practices Alert

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04155775. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

Comparison of Intraoperative Best Practice Advisory Reminders to Protocolize Insulin Administration Versus Standard Care in Patients at High Risk of Hyperglycemia

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05426096. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

In Search of Best Practices for Patients With Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: An Evaluation of the Inova Heart Failure Treatment Algorithm

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06675448. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 16.

Duration of Antibiotic Therapy in Critically Ill Patients: C-reactive Protein-guided Therapy Versus Best Practice

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02987790. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

A Trial to Investigate Efficacy and Usability of Published Best Practice to Control Glycaemia

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01407289. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.

Ontario ICU Clinical Best Practices Demonstration Project

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00332982. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

Sumamos Excelencia Project: Implementation of Best Practices in Clinical Practice (Thrid Edition)

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06522529. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 35.