News
Do Model Organisms Need an Impact Factor? New Study Tracks Citations of Key Research Resources
August 13, 2025, Cambridge, UK, and San Diego, CA
Citations of research resources over time for MMRRC (left) and The Rigor and Transparency Index a comparison of all papers published in a given year, vs the papers that refer to MMRRC (right)
Biological resources rarely get credit. This study shows how RRIDs are changing that—and improving science along the way.
A new study from SciCrunch Inc. and academic collaborators highlights a persistent problem in biomedical research: researchers often fail to cite key biological resources—like mice, frogs, or antibodies—in a way that makes them easily identifiable. This makes it hard to track how resources are used or ensure that studies are reproducible.
The study analyzed over 3,000 papers referencing materials from five NIH-supported stock centers. Researchers found that when these centers encourage the use of RRIDs (Research Resource Identifiers)—persistent identifiers similar to barcodes—citation practices improved dramatically. In some cases, accurate and findable citations jumped from around 50% to over 85%.
“RRIDs are more than just good metadata—they’re a foundation for transparent, reproducible science”
The paper also found that studies using resources cited with RRIDs scored higher on SciScore’s Rigor and Transparency Index (RTI), suggesting that good citation practices are linked to higher-quality science overall.
Stock centers, which are mostly funded by grants, need evidence of their impact to sustain support. Yet without consistent citation practices, tracking resource use is time-consuming and unreliable. The study estimates that RRIDs could save hours of manual work and even help reduce the estimated $10.8 billion lost annually to irreproducible research in the U.S.
While some journals request authors use RRIDs, the study finds that stock centers play a big role in driving adoption. Centers that added RRIDs to their websites and launched community awareness efforts saw the biggest improvements in citation quality.
“RRIDs don’t just improve how resources are cited—they embody good scientific practices. They signal the importance of rigor and show the path to more reproducible, higher-quality research.”
The authors hope their findings will lead to broader adoption of RRIDs, supporting a more robust and reproducible research ecosystem.
More information can be found in the published paper in PLOS:
DOI: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0327344
The journal's name: PLOS ONE
About SciScore
SciCrunch Inc. is home to platforms like the Resource Identification Initiative, the Antibody Registry, and SciScore. We know the “ingredients” that go into your scientific paper and we work closely with the research community. SciScore won the 2022 Vesalius Innovation Award runner-up prize and was a 2020 ALPSP Innovation Award finalist. For more information, go to: https://www.scicrunch.com/about-us
Contact Researchers: Anita Bandrowski | anita@scicrunch.com
Contact Media/Publishers: Martijn Roelandse | martijn@martijnroelandse.dev