Reference health
A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine
78/78 checkable references clean · checked 2026-07-24
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
8 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 78 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384
A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field
resolves10.1186/s13040-016-0115-3
Considerations for higher efficiency and productivity in research activities
resolves10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003244
Ten Simple Rules for Cultivating Open Science and Collaborative R&D
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0215052
Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis
resolves10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467
Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers
resolves10.2147/IJN.S87585
Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023
What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?
resolves10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.029
Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018
Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications
resolves10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181732
Twelve tips on writing abstracts and titles: How to get people to use and cite your work
resolves10.4103/sja.SJA_685_18
Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key
resolves10.1373/clinchem.2010.143628
“It was a cold and rainy night”: Set the Scene with a Good Introduction
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.004
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part III: introduction
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.003
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part IV: methods
resolves10.1373/clinchem.2010.146589
Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why: The Ingredients in the Recipe for a Successful Methods Section
resolves10.1186/1471-2156-14-39
Candidate gene association studies: a comprehensive guide to useful in silicotools
resolves10.7554/eLife.48175
Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.003
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.016
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VII: tables and figures
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.017
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: discussion
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.015
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VIII: references
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0226727
Acknowledgements are not just thank you notes: A qualitative analysis of acknowledgements content in scientific articles and reviews published in 2015
resolves10.1007/s11948-007-9011-z
A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines
resolves10.1038/ng1201-365
Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data
resolves10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors
resolves10.1016/j.hlc.2018.03.027
An Introduction to Writing Narrative and Systematic Reviews — Tasks, Tips and Traps for Aspiring Authors
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1001117
STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology – Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): An Extension of the STROBE Statement
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022
STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)— An Extension of the STROBE Statement
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
resolves10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z
Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement
resolves10.1371/journal.pmed.1000251
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials
resolves10.1186/1752-1947-7-223
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0174831
Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
resolves10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797
The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments
resolves10.1002/eji.201970107
Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition)
resolves10.1038/cdd.2009.44
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring cell death in higher eukaryotes
resolves10.1038/gim.2015.30
Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology
resolves10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
resolves10.1002/bies.201500011
Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.014
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part X: choice of journal
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.004
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part XI: submitting a paper
resolves10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.003
Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part XII: responding to reviewers
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond
resolves10.7717/peerj.4375
The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.1002614
Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education
The 8 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedShaw DM, Erren TC. Ten simple rules for protecting research integrity. PLoSComputBiol. 2015;11:e1004388.
no DOI — not checkedBahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: title. Int J EndocrinolMetab. 2019;17:e98326.
no DOI — not checkedBahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: abstract and keywords. Int J EndocrinolMetab. 2020;18:e100159.
no DOI — not checkedLang T. Twenty statistical errors even you can find in biomedical research articles. Croat Med J. 2004;45:361–70.
no DOI — not checkedWorthy G. Statistical analysis and reporting: common errors found during peer review and how to avoid them. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14076.
no DOI — not checkedBrand A, Allen L, Altman M. Hlava M. Scott JJLP: Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. 2015;28:151–5.
no DOI — not checkeddMIQE Group, Huggett JF. The digital MIQE guidelines update: minimum information for publication of quantitative digital PCR experiments for 2020. ClinChem. 2020;66:1012–29.
no DOI — not checkedMartín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, López-Cózar ED. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. JOI. 2018;12:1160–77.
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-07-24 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1186/s12967-020-02596-2"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1186/s12967-020-02596-2/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1186/s12967-020-02596-2)