The Geometric Increase in Meta-Analyses from China in the Genomic Era is a dataset published in PLoS ONE (2013). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 4.5, placing it in the top 4.9% of the data-sharing corpus. It has been cited 68 times, with 48 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 31/100.
Ranks in the top 5% for downstream scientific impact
Linked data & code
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
This score predates the current agent — it came from the earlier rubric, which blended repository metadata into the number and asked the model for a rating rather than an evidenced verdict. Re-evaluate the paper to score it against the current standards-anchored criteria, where every verdict is backed by a quote from the full text.
DOI present
datacite=0, pmcid=True, pmid=True
no OpenAlex id
The paper provides no metadata beyond PubMed tagging (e.g., no structured data files, no provenance metadata), and the citation information is limited to author lists and affiliations, which are not machine-actionable.
Open Access
0 OA location(s)
No access protocol for underlying data (e.g., PubMed search results, HuGE Navigator counts, or the 100 meta-analyses sample) is provided; the paper only describes search strategies without a link to the data.
linked_datasets=0, datacite=0
accessions=0, trials=0
The paper uses standard medical classification terms (e.g., MeSH via PubMed) but does not specify formal ontologies, controlled vocabularies, or persistent identifiers for the meta-analyses or gene variants studied.
no license
downloads=0
no version chain
is_dataset
No data-availability statement is present, no license for reuse of the synthesized data is given, and the study does not provide the list of included meta-analyses or a reproducible code/query.
Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →
Base Score Contribution
0.635
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
3.8
From 41 citing papers with measurable signal
Ranked by each citer's contribution to N(p) — log1p(Cq) divided by its reference count — out of 48 citers.
Additional file 6 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 6 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 4 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 3 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 1 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 4 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 5 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 2 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 2 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 3 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 1 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols
Additional file 5 of Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols