Reference health

Best practice data life cycle approaches for the life sciences

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12344.1
CiteStamped reference-health badge
68/68 checkable references clean · checked 2026-07-14

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 publisher retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.

5 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 68 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1016/j.future.2017.01.012
Scientific workflows for computational reproducibility in the life sciences: Status, challenges and opportunities
resolves10.1890/ES14-00402.1
The Tao of open science for ecology
resolves10.7717/peerj.175
Data reuse and the open data citation advantage
resolves10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014
The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age
resolves10.1186/s12918-016-0288-x
Where next for the reproducibility agenda in computational biology?
resolves10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005037
The Virtuous Cycle of a Data Ecosystem
resolves10.1016/j.tree.2010.11.006
Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices
resolves10.1038/sdata.2016.18
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0147942
Water, Water, Everywhere: Defining and Assessing Data Sharing in Academia
resolves10.1890/120375
Completing the data life cycle: using information management in macrosystems ecology research
resolves10.3233/ISU-170824
Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud
resolves10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.016
Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data-intensive science
resolves10.5334/jors.ax
Data Management Lifecycle and Software Lifecycle Management in the Context of Conducting Science
resolves10.1038/461145a
Data's shameful neglect
resolves10.1890/ES12-00139.1
The fractured lab notebook: undergraduates and ecological data management training in the United States
resolves10.2218/ijdc.v11i1.389
Data Management Education from the Perspective of Science Educators
resolves10.2218/ijdc.v11i1.413
The Future of Data Management Planning: Tools, Policies, and Players
resolves10.1093/bib/bbx071
Establishing a distributed national research infrastructure providing bioinformatics support to life science researchers in Australia
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0143460
Research Data in Core Journals in Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics
resolves10.7554/eLife.16800
How open science helps researchers succeed
resolves10.1038/ng.1054
Toward interoperable bioscience data
resolves10.1093/nar/gkv1352
The European Bioinformatics Institute in 2016: Data growth and integration
resolves10.1093/nar/gkw1071
Database Resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information
resolves10.1093/nar/gkw1001
DNA Data Bank of Japan
resolves10.1093/nar/gkv1310
The SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics’ resources: focus on curated databases
resolves10.1007/978-1-4939-7000-1_26
Protein Data Bank (PDB): The Single Global Macromolecular Structure Archive
resolves10.3897/zookeys.150.1766
Data issues in the life sciences
resolves10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.042
Strategies for the sustainability of online open-access biodiversity databases
resolves10.1186/s12915-016-0276-z
Model organism databases: essential resources that need the support of both funders and users
resolves10.1126/science.351.6268.14
Funding for key data resources in jeopardy
resolves10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000605
Annotation Error in Public Databases: Misannotation of Molecular Function in Enzyme Superfamilies
resolves10.1002/pmic.201600034
Strategies to improve usability and preserve accuracy in biological sequence databases
resolves10.1093/database/bav126
Value, but high costs in post-deposition data curation
resolves10.1093/database/baw075
BioSharing: curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences
resolves10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004743
Ten Simple Rules for Selecting a Bio-ontology
resolves10.1007/s11306-015-0879-3
Data standards can boost metabolomics research, and if there is a will, there is a way
resolves10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002066
A sea of standards for omics data: sink or swim?
resolves10.1073/pnas.85.8.2444
Improved tools for biological sequence comparison.
resolves10.1093/nar/gkp1137
The Sanger FASTQ file format for sequences with quality scores, and the Solexa/Illumina FASTQ variants
resolves10.1038/nbt.1411
Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project
resolves10.12688/f1000research.5773.3
ActivePapers: a platform for publishing and archiving computer-aided research
resolves10.1186/s13742-016-0135-4
Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility
resolves10.12688/f1000research.11407.1
Four simple recommendations to encourage best practices in research software
resolves10.12688/f1000research.9206.1
Top 10 metrics for life science software good practices
resolves10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510
Good enough practices in scientific computing
resolves10.1093/nar/gkt1081
Updates to BioSamples database at European Bioinformatics Institute
resolves10.1016/j.tree.2015.03.002
Specimens as primary data: museums and ‘open science’
resolves10.7717/peerj.1168
Non-repeatable science: assessing the frequency of voucher specimen deposition reveals that most arthropod research cannot be verified
resolves10.1080/14888386.2008.9712887
Genebanks in the post-genomic age: Emerging roles and anticipated uses
resolves10.1038/522151a
Reproducibility: Use mouse biobanks or lose them
resolves10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1406
Biospecimen Complexity—the Next Challenge for Cancer Research Biobanks?
resolves10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004385
Ten Simple Rules for a Computational Biologist’s Laboratory Notebook
resolves10.1177/2211068212471834
Using Evernote as an Electronic Lab Notebook in a Translational Science Laboratory
resolves10.3897/zookeys.150.2193
Scratchpads 2.0: a Virtual Research Environment supporting scholarly collaboration, communication and data publication in biodiversity science
resolves10.1126/science.241.4866.637
The Price of Progress
resolves10.1140/epjds13
Realities of data sharing using the genome wars as case study - an historical perspective and commentary
resolves10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.025
Forgotten treasures: the fate of data in animal behaviour studies
resolves10.1038/npre.2008.1700.1
A review of journal policies for sharing research data
resolves10.17226/10613
Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
resolves10.1629/uksg.284
Making sense of journal research data policies
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333
Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature
resolves10.1038/nrg3305
Next-generation sequencing data interpretation: enhancing reproducibility and accessibility
resolves10.1126/science.1211811
Improving Validation Practices in “Omics” Research
resolves10.7554/eLife.04333
An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research
resolves10.1056/NEJMp1211410
For the Sake of Inquiry and Knowledge — The Inevitability of Open Access
resolves10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009
resolves10.1371/journal.pbio.2001414
Identifiers for the 21st century: How to design, provision, and reuse persistent identifiers to maximize utility and impact of life science data
The 5 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedLarge-scale data sharing in the life sciences: Data standards, incentives, barriers and funding models
no DOI — not checkedMeasuring the value of information: an asset valuation approach
no DOI — not checkedThe value and impact of the European Bioinformatics Institute: executive summary
no DOI — not checkedA reproducible R notebook using Docker
no DOI — not checkedWhy traditional storage systems don’t help us save stuff forever
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 publisher 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 2026-07-14 — 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/10.12688/f1000research.12344.1"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.12688/f1000research.12344.1/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[![CiteStamped reference-health badge](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.12688/f1000research.12344.1/badge.svg)](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.12688/f1000research.12344.1)