A quantified comparison of cortical atlases on the basis of trait morphometricity is a dataset published in Cortex (2022). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.1, placing it in the top 18.3% of the data-sharing corpus. It has been cited 42 times, with 36 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 6/100.
Ranks in the top 18% for downstream scientific impact
DataRank reads this dataset's downstream impact straight off the citation graph — no black box, no proprietary weighting. How is this computed?
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Full FAIR picture · advisory
The headline score is computed from the scored criteria — the fact-shaped checks (a repository, an accession, a licence) that two independent models agree on. The advisory criteria below are real FAIR guidance but rest on judgment calls that models read differently, so they inform without moving the number.
The paper gives a URL (https://osf.io/dkw9t) for materials and data, but this is not a persistent identifier scheme (no DOI, Handle, ARK, or repository accession). The URL is a class-2 artefact. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
RDA-F1-01D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a persistent identifier' (priorit · RDA-F1-02D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a globally unique identifier' · FsF-F1-02D — F-UJI/FAIRsFAIR: 'Data is assigned a persistent identifier'
The paper states that the authors do not have permission to share data, so no repository is named as the holder of the study's own data. The OSF link is for materials, not data.
RDA-F4-01M — FAIR Data Maturity Model: metadata is offered so it can be harvested and indexed ( · NIH DMS Policy Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — name the repository where data will be archived · NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Long-Term Sustainability', 'Reten
The paper's own dataset (morphometricity estimates, code) is not cited in the reference list; the UK Biobank resource is cited but that is not the study's own data.
FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (2014) — data should be cited as a first- · RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes · FsF-F3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes the identifier of the data it describes'
Advisory · not in the published score
The data availability statement declares that the data cannot be shared ('The authors do not have permission to share data'), which is Colavizza category 0 (no route), so the verdict is no.
Colavizza, Hrynaszkiewicz, Staden, Whitaker & McGillivray (2020), 'The citation advantage of li · Springer Nature research data policy — Data Availability Statements: standard statement templat · RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes
The paper does not provide an itemized inventory of the dataset (files, variables, records) that it generated; it only describes the UK Biobank source data and methods.
RDA-F2-01M — 'Rich metadata is provided to allow discovery' (priority Essential) · FsF-F2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes descriptive core elements to support data findability' · FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data'
The data availability statement explicitly says 'The authors do not have permission to share data', indicating that the data are not openly accessible and no followable route is provided.
RDA-A1.1-01D — 'Data is accessible through a free access protocol' · FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data' · NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Free and Easy Access'
Advisory · not in the published score
The paper does not provide any access-level label for the data; it only states that the data cannot be shared, which implies no access conditions are described.
FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data' · RDA-A1-01M — metadata contains information to enable the user to get access to the data · COAR Controlled Vocabularies — Access Rights v1.0 (open / embargoed / restricted / metadata-onl
The paper states that the authors do not have permission to share data, but no institutional gatekeeper is named for the study's own data. The UK Biobank data used is controlled-access, but the study's own derived data are not shared.
NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy (NOT-OD-14-124) — controlled-access via a Data Access Committee · RDA-A1.2-01D — 'Data is accessible through an access protocol that supports authentication and · NIH DMS Policy Element 5 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Access, Distribution, or Reuse Considerations (conse
The paper makes no statement about when the data are available or how long they persist; the data are not shared.
NIH DMS Plan Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Data Preservation, Access, and Associated Timelines · NSTC Desirable Characteristics (2022), Organizational Infrastructure: 'Retention Policy' · RDA-A2-01M — 'Metadata is guaranteed to remain available after data is no longer available'
The paper does not name any file format for the released data; the code is on GitHub but no format token for the data is given.
FsF-R1.3-02D — F-UJI: 'Data is available in a file format recommended by the target research co · RDA-R1.3-02D — data is expressed in a machine-understandable community standard · RDA-I1-01D — data uses a knowledge representation expressed in a standardised format
Advisory · not in the published score
No community-standard metadata schema, ontology, or checklist is applied to the study's own data; the paper uses standard atlases but does not apply them as a metadata standard to the released data.
RDA-R1.3-01M — 'Metadata complies with a community standard' (priority Essential) · RDA-R1.3-01D — 'Data complies with a community standard' · RDA-I2-01M — '(Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles'
“AEF is the lead analysist on this project and has been granted access to the UKB data through UKB application 40933”
The paper provides an identifier for the UK Biobank data it uses, which is a resource other than the paper's own dataset. [majority verdict 'yes' (3/5 passes agreed)]
RDA-I3-01M — '(meta)data include references to other (meta)data' · RDA-I3-03M — 'metadata includes qualified references to other metadata' · FsF-I3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes links between the data and its related entities'
The paper is under a CC BY license, but that applies to the article, not the data. No license or terms are named for the data itself.
RDA-R1.1-01M — 'Metadata includes information about the licence under which the data can be reu · RDA-R1.1-02M — 'Metadata refers to a standard reuse licence' · RDA-R1.1-03M — 'Metadata refers to a machine-understandable reuse licence'
The paper does not provide a version token or date for the study's own data; the data are not released as a versioned resource.
DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — the 'Version' property · RDA-R1.2-01M — provenance information (which version was used is provenance) · NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Provenance', 'Retention Policy'
The paper provides a GitHub URL for the analysis code (https://annafurtjes.github.io/Comparing_atlases/), which is a machine-resolvable locator. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]
NIH DMS Policy Element 2 (NOT-OD-21-014) — 'Related Tools, Software and/or Code' · FAIR4RS Principles v1.0 (Chue Hong et al., 2022; RDA/FORCE11/ReSA) — FAIR Principles for Resear · FORCE11 Software Citation Principles (Smith, Katz & Niemeyer, 2016, PeerJ CS 2:e86)
The paper lists specific grant numbers including R01AG054628, MR/R024790/1, and App1161356, providing award-level funding attribution. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]
DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — 'FundingReference' property (funderName, funderIdentifier, award · Crossref Funder Registry — canonical funder identifiers for funding metadata · RDA-F2-01M — rich metadata provided to allow discovery (funding is part of the descriptive reco
Advisory · not in the published score
The paper names specific software and versions used to produce the data, such as 'FreeSurfer 6.0' and 'OSCA software', providing provenance information. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (2/5 passes agreed)]
RDA-R1.2-01M — 'Metadata includes provenance information according to community- specific standa · FsF-R1.2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes provenance information about data creation or generati · W3C PROV-O (W3C Recommendation, 2013) — the entity/activity/agent model of provenance
No documentation object (README, codebook, data dictionary) is mentioned as accompanying the data; the data are not shared.
RDA-R1-01M — '(Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attribu · FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data' · NIH DMS Policy Element 3 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Standards (documentation and metadata to accompany t
Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →
Base Score Contribution
0.564
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0.553
From 21 citing papers with measurable signal
Ranked by each citer's contribution to N(p) — log1p(Cq) divided by its reference count — out of 36 citers.
Medical Research Council
Grant: MC_PC_17228
Medical Research Council
Grant: MC_QA137853
Medical Research Council
Grant: MR/R024790/1
NIA NIH HHS
Grant: R01 AG054628
Medical Research Council
Grant: MR/R024790/2
MeSH Terms
Keywords