Search

Antibodies are ubiquitous key biological research resources yet are tricky to use as they are prone to performance issues and represent a major source of variability across studies. Understanding what antibody was used in a published study is therefore necessary to repeat and/or interpret a given study. However, antibody reagents are still frequently not cited with sufficient detail to determine which antibody was used in experiments. The Antibody Registry is a public, open database that enables citation of antibodies by providing a persistent record for any antibody-based reagent used in a publication. The registry is the authority for antibody Research Resource Identifiers, or RRIDs, which are requested or required by hundreds of journals seeking to improve the citation of these key resources. The registry is the most comprehensive listing of persistently identified antibody reagents used in the scientific literature. Data contributors span individual authors who use antibodies to antibody companies, which provide their entire catalogs including discontinued items. Unlike many commercial antibody listing sites which tend to remove reagents no longer sold, registry records persist, providing an interface between a fast-moving commercial marketplace and the static scientific literature. The Antibody Registry (RRID:SCR_006397) https://antibodyregistry.org.

Characterizing cellular diversity at different levels of biological organization and across data modalities is a prerequisite to understanding the function of cell types in the brain. Classification of neurons is also essential to manipulate cell types in controlled ways and to understand their variation and vulnerability in brain disorders. The BRAIN Initiative Cell Census Network (BICCN) is an integrated network of data-generating centers, data archives, and data standards developers, with the goal of systematic multimodal brain cell type profiling and characterization. Emphasis of the BICCN is on the whole mouse brain with demonstration of prototype feasibility for human and nonhuman primate (NHP) brains. Here, we provide a guide to the cellular and spatial approaches employed by the BICCN, and to accessing and using these data and extensive resources, including the BRAIN Cell Data Center (BCDC), which serves to manage and integrate data across the ecosystem. We illustrate the power of the BICCN data ecosystem through vignettes highlighting several BICCN analysis and visualization tools. Finally, we present emerging standards that have been developed or adopted toward Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) neuroscience. The combined BICCN ecosystem provides a comprehensive resource for the exploration and analysis of cell types in the brain.

The challenge of defining and cataloging the building blocks of the brain requires a standardized approach to naming neurons and organizing knowledge about their properties. The US Brain Initiative Cell Census Network, Human Cell Atlas, Blue Brain Project, and others are generating vast amounts of data and characterizing large numbers of neurons throughout the nervous system. The neuroscientific literature contains many neuron names (e.g. parvalbumin-positive interneuron or layer 5 pyramidal cell) that are commonly used and generally accepted. However, it is often unclear how such common usage types relate to many evidence-based types that are proposed based on the results of new techniques. Further, comparing different types across labs remains a significant challenge. Here, we propose an interoperable knowledge representation, the Neuron Phenotype Ontology (NPO), that provides a standardized and automatable approach for naming cell types and normalizing their constituent phenotypes using identifiers from community ontologies as a common language. The NPO provides a framework for systematically organizing knowledge about cellular properties and enables interoperability with existing neuron naming schemes. We evaluate the NPO by populating a knowledge base with three independent cortical neuron classifications derived from published data sets that describe neurons according to molecular, morphological, electrophysiological, and synaptic properties. Competency queries to this knowledge base demonstrate that the NPO knowledge model enables interoperability between the three test cases and neuron names commonly used in the literature.

Neuroscience has undergone a significant transformation over the past decade, becoming an increasingly open and FAIR discipline. I provide personal perspectives on the importance of two community organizations, FORCE11: The Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship and INCF: The International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility in providing the intellectual and community environment where ideas and open sharing of data and code were incubated and tried.

In this perspective article, we consider the critical issue of data and other research object standardisation and, specifically, how international collaboration, and organizations such as the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility (INCF) can encourage that emerging neuroscience data be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). As neuroscientists engaged in the sharing and integration of multi-modal and multiscale data, we see the current insufficiency of standards as a major impediment in the Interoperability and Reusability of research results. We call for increased international collaborative standardisation of neuroscience data to foster integration and efficient reuse of research objects.

As neuroscience projects increase in scale and cross international borders, different ethical principles, national and international laws, regulations, and policies for data sharing must be considered. These concerns are part of what is collectively called data governance. Whereas neuroscience data transcend borders, data governance is typically constrained within geopolitical boundaries. An international data governance framework and accompanying infrastructure can assist investigators, institutions, data repositories, and funders with navigating disparate policies. Here, we propose principles and operational considerations for how data governance in neuroscience can be navigated at an international scale and highlight gaps, challenges, and opportunities in a global brain data ecosystem. We consider how to approach data governance in a way that balances data protection requirements and the need for open science, so as to promote international collaboration through federated constructs such as the International Brain Initiative (IBI).

There is great need for coordination around standards and best practices in neuroscience to support efforts to make neuroscience a data-centric discipline. Major brain initiatives launched around the world are poised to generate huge stores of neuroscience data. At the same time, neuroscience, like many domains in biomedicine, is confronting the issues of transparency, rigor, and reproducibility. Widely used, validated standards and best practices are key to addressing the challenges in both big and small data science, as they are essential for integrating diverse data and for developing a robust, effective, and sustainable infrastructure to support open and reproducible neuroscience. However, developing community standards and gaining their adoption is difficult. The current landscape is characterized both by a lack of robust, validated standards and a plethora of overlapping, underdeveloped, untested and underutilized standards and best practices. The International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility (INCF), an independent organization dedicated to promoting data sharing through the coordination of infrastructure and standards, has recently implemented a formal procedure for evaluating and endorsing community standards and best practices in support of the FAIR principles. By formally serving as a standards organization dedicated to open and FAIR neuroscience, INCF helps evaluate, promulgate, and coordinate standards and best practices across neuroscience. Here, we provide an overview of the process and discuss how neuroscience can benefit from having a dedicated standards body.

The stimulating peripheral activity to relieve conditions (SPARC) program is a US National Institutes of Health-funded effort to improve our understanding of the neural circuitry of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) in support of bioelectronic medicine. As part of this effort, the SPARC project is generating multi-species, multimodal data, models, simulations, and anatomical maps supported by a comprehensive knowledge base of autonomic circuitry. To facilitate the organization of and integration across multi-faceted SPARC data and models, SPARC is implementing the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data principles to ensure that all SPARC products are findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. We are therefore annotating and describing all products with a common FAIR vocabulary. The SPARC Vocabulary is built from a set of community ontologies covering major domains relevant to SPARC, including anatomy, physiology, experimental techniques, and molecules. The SPARC Vocabulary is incorporated into tools researchers use to segment and annotate their data, facilitating the application of these ontologies for annotation of research data. However, since investigators perform deep annotations on experimental data, not all terms and relationships are available in community ontologies. We therefore implemented a term management and vocabulary extension pipeline where SPARC researchers may extend the SPARC Vocabulary using InterLex, an online vocabulary management system. To ensure the quality of contributed terms, we have set up a curated term request and review pipeline specifically for anatomical terms involving expert review. Accepted terms are added to the SPARC Vocabulary and, when appropriate, contributed back to community ontologies to enhance ANS coverage. Here, we provide an overview of the SPARC Vocabulary, the infrastructure and process for implementing the term management and review pipeline. In an analysis of >300 anatomical contributed terms, the majority represented composite terms that necessitated combining terms within and across existing ontologies. Although these terms are not good candidates for community ontologies, they can be linked to structures contained within these ontologies. We conclude that the term request pipeline serves as a useful adjunct to community ontologies for annotating experimental data and increases the FAIRness of SPARC data.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem. Despite considerable research deciphering injury pathophysiology, precision therapies remain elusive. Here, we present large-scale data sharing and machine intelligence approaches to leverage TBI complexity. The Open Data Commons for TBI (ODC-TBI) is a community-centered repository emphasizing Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable data sharing and publication with persistent identifiers. Importantly, the ODC-TBI implements data sharing of individual subject data, enabling pooling for high-sample-size, feature-rich data sets for machine learning analytics. We demonstrate pooled ODC-TBI data analyses, starting with descriptive analytics of subject-level data from 11 previously published articles (N = 1250 subjects) representing six distinct pre-clinical TBI models. Second, we perform unsupervised machine learning on multi-cohort data to identify persistent inflammatory patterns across different studies, improving experimental sensitivity for pro- versus anti-inflammation effects. As funders and journals increasingly mandate open data practices, ODC-TBI will create new scientific opportunities for researchers and facilitate multi-data-set, multi-dimensional analytics toward effective translation.

The past decade has seen accelerating movement from data protectionism in publishing toward open data sharing to improve reproducibility and translation of biomedical research. Developing data sharing infrastructures to meet these new demands remains a challenge. One model for data sharing involves simply attaching data, irrespective of its type, to publisher websites or general use repositories. However, some argue this creates a 'data dump' that does not promote the goals of making data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). Specialized data sharing communities offer an alternative model where data are curated by domain experts to make it both open and FAIR. We report on our experiences developing one such data-sharing ecosystem focusing on 'long-tail' preclinical data, the Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury (odc-sci.org). ODC-SCI was developed with community-based agile design requirements directly pulled from a series of workshops with multiple stakeholders (researchers, consumers, non-profit funders, governmental agencies, journals, and industry members). ODC-SCI focuses on heterogeneous tabular data collected by preclinical researchers including bio-behaviour, histopathology findings and molecular endpoints. This has led to an example of a specialized neurocommons that is well-embraced by the community it aims to serve. In the present paper, we provide a review of the community-based design template and describe the adoption by the community including a high-level review of current data assets, publicly released datasets, and web analytics. Although odc-sci.org is in its late beta stage of development, it represents a successful example of a specialized data commons that may serve as a model for other fields.

Here we report the generation of a multimodal cell census and atlas of the mammalian primary motor cortex as the initial product of the BRAIN Initiative Cell Census Network (BICCN). This was achieved by coordinated large-scale analyses of single-cell transcriptomes, chromatin accessibility, DNA methylomes, spatially resolved single-cell transcriptomes, morphological and electrophysiological properties and cellular resolution input-output mapping, integrated through cross-modal computational analysis. Our results advance the collective knowledge and understanding of brain cell-type organization1-5. First, our study reveals a unified molecular genetic landscape of cortical cell types that integrates their transcriptome, open chromatin and DNA methylation maps. Second, cross-species analysis achieves a consensus taxonomy of transcriptomic types and their hierarchical organization that is conserved from mouse to marmoset and human. Third, in situ single-cell transcriptomics provides a spatially resolved cell-type atlas of the motor cortex. Fourth, cross-modal analysis provides compelling evidence for the transcriptomic, epigenomic and gene regulatory basis of neuronal phenotypes such as their physiological and anatomical properties, demonstrating the biological validity and genomic underpinning of neuron types. We further present an extensive genetic toolset for targeting glutamatergic neuron types towards linking their molecular and developmental identity to their circuit function. Together, our results establish a unifying and mechanistic framework of neuronal cell-type organization that integrates multi-layered molecular genetic and spatial information with multi-faceted phenotypic properties.

Antibodies are widely used reagents to test for expression of proteins and other antigens. However, they might not always reliably produce results when they do not specifically bind to the target proteins that their providers designed them for, leading to unreliable research results. While many proposals have been developed to deal with the problem of antibody specificity, it is still challenging to cover the millions of antibodies that are available to researchers. In this study, we investigate the feasibility of automatically generating alerts to users of problematic antibodies by extracting statements about antibody specificity reported in the literature. The extracted alerts can be used to construct an "Antibody Watch" knowledge base containing supporting statements of problematic antibodies. We developed a deep neural network system and tested its performance with a corpus of more than two thousand articles that reported uses of antibodies. We divided the problem into two tasks. Given an input article, the first task is to identify snippets about antibody specificity and classify if the snippets report that any antibody exhibits non-specificity, and thus is problematic. The second task is to link each of these snippets to one or more antibodies mentioned in the snippet. The experimental evaluation shows that our system can accurately perform the classification task with 0.925 weighted F1-score, linking with 0.962 accuracy, and 0.914 weighted F1 when combined to complete the joint task. We leveraged Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) to precisely identify antibodies linked to the extracted specificity snippets. The result shows that it is feasible to construct a reliable knowledge base about problematic antibodies by text mining.

The Data and Resource Center (DRC) of the NIH-funded SPARC program is developing databases, connectivity maps, and simulation tools for the mammalian autonomic nervous system. The experimental data and mathematical models supplied to the DRC by the SPARC consortium are curated, annotated and semantically linked via a single knowledgebase. A data portal has been developed that allows discovery of data and models both via semantic search and via an interface that includes Google Map-like 2D flatmaps for displaying connectivity, and 3D anatomical organ scaffolds that provide a common coordinate framework for cross-species comparisons. We discuss examples that illustrate the data pipeline, which includes data upload, curation, segmentation (for image data), registration against the flatmaps and scaffolds, and finally display via the web portal, including the link to freely available online computational facilities that will enable neuromodulation hypotheses to be investigated by the autonomic neuroscience community and device manufacturers.

Increasing attention is being paid to the operation of biomedical data repositories in light of efforts to improve how scientific data is handled and made available for the long term. Multiple groups have produced recommendations for functions that biomedical repositories should support, with many using requirements of the FAIR data principles as guidelines. However, FAIR is but one set of principles that has arisen out of the open science community. They are joined by principles governing open science, data citation and trustworthiness, all of which are important aspects for biomedical data repositories to support. Together, these define a framework for data repositories that we call OFCT: Open, FAIR, Citable and Trustworthy. Here we developed an instrument using the open source PolicyModels toolkit that attempts to operationalize key aspects of OFCT principles and piloted the instrument by evaluating eight biomedical community repositories listed by the NIDDK Information Network (dkNET.org). Repositories included both specialist repositories that focused on a particular data type or domain, in this case diabetes and metabolomics, and generalist repositories that accept all data types and domains. The goal of this work was both to obtain a sense of how much the design of current biomedical data repositories align with these principles and to augment the dkNET listing with additional information that may be important to investigators trying to choose a repository, e.g., does the repository fully support data citation? The evaluation was performed from March to November 2020 through inspection of documentation and interaction with the sites by the authors. Overall, although there was little explicit acknowledgement of any of the OFCT principles in our sample, the majority of repositories provided at least some support for their tenets.

Over the last 5 years, multiple stakeholders in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI) research have initiated efforts to promote publications standards and enable sharing of experimental data. In 2016, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke hosted representatives from the SCI community to streamline these efforts and discuss the future of data sharing in the field according to the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) data stewardship principles. As a next step, a multi-stakeholder group hosted a 2017 symposium in Washington, DC entitled "FAIR SCI Ahead: the Evolution of the Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury research." The goal of this meeting was to receive feedback from the community regarding infrastructure, policies, and organization of a community-governed Open Data Commons (ODC) for pre-clinical SCI research. Here, we summarize the policy outcomes of this meeting and report on progress implementing these policies in the form of a digital ecosystem: the Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury (ODC-SCI.org). ODC-SCI enables data management, harmonization, and controlled sharing of data in a manner consistent with the well-established norms of scholarly publication. Specifically, ODC-SCI is organized around virtual "laboratories" with the ability to share data within each of three distinct data-sharing spaces: within the laboratory, across verified laboratories, or publicly under a creative commons license (CC-BY 4.0) with a digital object identifier that enables data citation. The ODC-SCI implements FAIR data sharing and enables pooled data-driven discovery while crediting the generators of valuable SCI data.

The Research Resource Identifier (RRID) was introduced in 2014 to better identify biomedical research resources and track their use across the literature, including key digital resources such as databases and software. Authors include an RRID after the first mention of any resource used. Here, we provide an overview of RRIDs and analyze their use for digital resource identification. We quantitatively compare the output of our RRID curation workflow with the outputs of automated text mining systems used to identify resource mentions in text. The results show that authors follow RRID reporting guidelines well, and that our natural language processing based text mining was able to identify nearly all of the resources identified by RRIDs as well as thousands more. Finally, we demonstrate how RRIDs and text mining can complement each other to provide a scalable solution to digital resource citation.

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories. SIGNIFICANCE: Failure to replicate research findings often arises from errors in the experimental design and statistical approaches. By providing a full account of the experimental design, procedures, and statistical approaches, researchers can address the reproducibility crisis and improve the sustainability of research outcomes. In this piece, we discuss the key issues leading to irreproducibility and provide general approaches to improving transparency and rigor in reporting, which could assist in making research more reproducible.

The use of misidentified and contaminated cell lines continues to be a problem in biomedical research. Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) should reduce the prevalence of misidentified and contaminated cell lines in the literature by alerting researchers to cell lines that are on the list of problematic cell lines, which is maintained by the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) and the Cellosaurus database. To test this assertion, we text-mined the methods sections of about two million papers in PubMed Central, identifying 305,161 unique cell-line names in 150,459 articles. We estimate that 8.6% of these cell lines were on the list of problematic cell lines, whereas only 3.3% of the cell lines in the 634 papers that included RRIDs were on the problematic list. This suggests that the use of RRIDs is associated with a lower reported use of problematic cell lines.

There has been a recent major upsurge in the concerns about reproducibility in many areas of science. Within the neuroimaging domain, one approach is to promote reproducibility is to target the re-executability of the publication. The information supporting such re-executability can enable the detailed examination of how an initial finding generalizes across changes in the processing approach, and sampled population, in a controlled scientific fashion. ReproNim: A Center for Reproducible Neuroimaging Computation is a recently funded initiative that seeks to facilitate the "last mile" implementations of core re-executability tools in order to reduce the accessibility barrier and increase adoption of standards and best practices at the neuroimaging research laboratory level. In this report, we summarize the overall approach and tools we have developed in this domain.

Most biomedical data repositories issue locally-unique accessions numbers, but do not provide globally unique, machine-resolvable, persistent identifiers for their datasets, as required by publishers wishing to implement data citation in accordance with widely accepted principles. Local accessions may however be prefixed with a namespace identifier, providing global uniqueness. Such "compact identifiers" have been widely used in biomedical informatics to support global resource identification with local identifier assignment. We report here on our project to provide robust support for machine-resolvable, persistent compact identifiers in biomedical data citation, by harmonizing the Identifiers.org and N2T.net (Name-To-Thing) meta-resolvers and extending their capabilities. Identifiers.org services hosted at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory - European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), and N2T.net services hosted at the California Digital Library (CDL), can now resolve any given identifier from over 600 source databases to its original source on the Web, using a common registry of prefix-based redirection rules. We believe these services will be of significant help to publishers and others implementing persistent, machine-resolvable citation of research data.

Routine data sharing, defined here as the publication of the primary data and any supporting materials required to interpret the data acquired as part of a research study, is still in its infancy in psychology, as in many domains. Nevertheless, with increased scrutiny on reproducibility and more funder mandates requiring sharing of data, the issues surrounding data sharing are moving beyond whether data sharing is a benefit or a bane to science, to what data should be shared and how. Here, we present an overview of these issues, specifically focusing on the sharing of so-called "long tail" data, that is, data generated by individual laboratories as part of largely hypothesis-driven research. We draw on experiences in other domains to discuss attitudes toward data sharing, cost-benefits, best practices and infrastructure. We argue that the publishing of data sets is an integral component of 21st-century scholarship. Moreover, although not all issues around how and what to share have been resolved, a consensus on principles and best practices for effective data sharing and the infrastructure for sharing many types of data are largely in place. (PsycINFO Database Record

This article provides guidelines for universities to incorporate data and software contributions into their hiring, promotion, and tenure processes. It emphasizes the importance of aligning evaluation processes with open science principles and valuing diverse scholarly contributions. The guidelines include recommendations for developing clear guidelines for committee members, selecting a suitable committee with expertise in open data and software, and articulating metrics for evaluation. The document acknowledges that data and software competency is just one factor to consider and encourages institutions to balance it with other relevant factors. [Extracted from the article]

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.

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to identify the exact resources that are reported or to answer basic questions such as "How did other studies use resource X?" To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (i.e., software and databases). RRIDs are assigned by an authoritative database, for example a model organism database, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal ( http://scicrunch.org/resources ). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40 with RRIDs appearing in 62 different journals to date. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are able to identify resources and are supportive of the goals of the project. Identifiability of the resources post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on identifiability of research resources.

There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders-representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers-have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.

The NIF Registry developed and maintained by the Neuroscience Information Framework is a cooperative project aimed at cataloging research resources, e.g., software tools, databases and tissue banks, funded largely by governments and available as tools to research scientists. Although originally conceived for neuroscience, the NIF Registry has over the years broadened in the scope to include research resources of general relevance to biomedical research. The current number of research resources listed by the Registry numbers over 13K. The broadening in scope to biomedical science led us to re-christen the NIF Registry platform as SciCrunch. The NIF/SciCrunch Registry has been cataloging the resource landscape since 2006; as such, it serves as a valuable dataset for tracking the breadth, fate and utilization of these resources. Our experience shows research resources like databases are dynamic objects, that can change location and scope over time. Although each record is entered manually and human-curated, the current size of the registry requires tools that can aid in curation efforts to keep content up to date, including when and where such resources are used. To address this challenge, we have developed an open source tool suite, collectively termed RDW: Resource Disambiguator for the (Web). RDW is designed to help in the upkeep and curation of the registry as well as in enhancing the content of the registry by automated extraction of resource candidates from the literature. The RDW toolkit includes a URL extractor from papers, resource candidate screen, resource URL change tracker, resource content change tracker. Curators access these tools via a web based user interface. Several strategies are used to optimize these tools, including supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms as well as statistical text analysis. The complete tool suite is used to enhance and maintain the resource registry as well as track the usage of individual resources through an innovative literature citation index honed for research resources. Here we present an overview of the Registry and show how the RDW tools are used in curation and usage tracking.

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to allow humans and algorithms to identify the exact resources that are reported or answer basic questions such as "What other studies used resource X?" To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (including software and databases). RRIDs represent accession numbers assigned by an authoritative database, e.g., the model organism databases, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal ( www.scicrunch.org/resources). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are generally accurate in performing the task of identifying resources and supportive of the goals of the project. We also show that identifiability of the resources pre- and post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on reproducibility relating to research resources.

The NIDDK Information Network (dkNET; http://dknet.org) was launched to serve the needs of basic and clinical investigators in metabolic, digestive and kidney disease by facilitating access to research resources that advance the mission of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). By research resources, we mean the multitude of data, software tools, materials, services, projects and organizations available to researchers in the public domain. Most of these are accessed via web-accessible databases or web portals, each developed, designed and maintained by numerous different projects, organizations and individuals. While many of the large government funded databases, maintained by agencies such as European Bioinformatics Institute and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, are well known to researchers, many more that have been developed by and for the biomedical research community are unknown or underutilized. At least part of the problem is the nature of dynamic databases, which are considered part of the "hidden" web, that is, content that is not easily accessed by search engines. dkNET was created specifically to address the challenge of connecting researchers to research resources via these types of community databases and web portals. dkNET functions as a "search engine for data", searching across millions of database records contained in hundreds of biomedical databases developed and maintained by independent projects around the world. A primary focus of dkNET are centers and projects specifically created to provide high quality data and resources to NIDDK researchers. Through the novel data ingest process used in dkNET, additional data sources can easily be incorporated, allowing it to scale with the growth of digital data and the needs of the dkNET community. Here, we provide an overview of the dkNET portal and its functions. We show how dkNET can be used to address a variety of use cases that involve searching for research resources.

The launch of the US BRAIN and European Human Brain Projects coincides with growing international efforts toward transparency and increased access to publicly funded research in the neurosciences. The need for data-sharing standards and neuroinformatics infrastructure is more pressing than ever. However, 'big science' efforts are not the only drivers of data-sharing needs, as neuroscientists across the full spectrum of research grapple with the overwhelming volume of data being generated daily and a scientific environment that is increasingly focused on collaboration. In this commentary, we consider the issue of sharing of the richly diverse and heterogeneous small data sets produced by individual neuroscientists, so-called long-tail data. We consider the utility of these data, the diversity of repositories and options available for sharing such data, and emerging best practices. We provide use cases in which aggregating and mining diverse long-tail data convert numerous small data sources into big data for improved knowledge about neuroscience-related disorders.