Downloads provided by UsageCounts
The Erroneous Reagent Checking (ERC) benchmark assesses the accuracy of fact-checkers screening biomedical publications for dubious mentions of nucleotide sequence reagents. It comes with a test collection comprised of 1,679 nucleotide sequence reagents that were curated by biomedical experts.
{"references": ["Labb\u00e9, C., Grima, N., Gautier, T., Favier, B., & Byrne, J. A. (2019). Semi-automated fact-checking of nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical research publications: The Seek&Blastn tool. PLoS ONE,14(3), e0213266. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213266"]}
benchmark, reagents, errors, nucleotide sequences, biomedical literature, genes, scientific text, PDF, fact-checking
benchmark, reagents, errors, nucleotide sequences, biomedical literature, genes, scientific text, PDF, fact-checking
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 12 | |
| downloads | 14 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts