|Current key elements impeding proper tracking of bioresources use in scientific literature|
|Difficulties related to identification and acknowledgement of bioresources||Difficulties encountered with marker papers**|
|- multiplicity of sections where bioresources can be acknowledged (Material & Methods, Acknowledgements, References…)||- suitable to refer to one type of bioresource but not for any derived, or secondary bioresources|
|- bioresource acknowledgement or citation placed outside the title or abstract in the main paper (or in online supplementary materials) which can therefore only be detected via full-text mining and is not indexed in Pubmed or Web of Science|
|- typing errors or approximation of the bioresource name/identification|
|- multiplicity of names for a given bioresource|
|- cascade use of resources (e.g. several CEPH* Family samples are part of the Hapmap which are themselves part of the 1000 Genome Project)|
|- acknowledgement of persons instead of the bioresource itself|
|-absence of acknowledgement for the bioresource used (negligence)|
|- no standardized way to incentivise researchers to acknowledge properly the bioresource used|
*CEPH, Centre d’Etude du Polymorphisme Humain.
Mabile et al.
Mabile et al. GigaScience 2013 2:7 doi:10.1186/2047-217X-2-7