Skip to content
Permalink
main
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time

TITLE: FAIR Maturity Indicator MI-R1.3-649848907b-MEASUREMENT_NUMBER

Authors:

Ammar Ammar, ORCID:0000-0002-8399-8990

Publication Date: 2021-02-12

Last Edit: 2021-05-03

Accepted: pending

Maturity Indicator Identifier: MI-R1.3-649848907b-MEASUREMENT_NUMBER

This maturity indicator falls under the FAIR principle R1.3: (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards

The ID of this MI is composed of the following segments (separated by hyphen):

  1. Acronym for "Maturity Indicator"
  2. The FAIR principle this maturity indicator belongs to
  3. The first 10 characters truncated from the SHA-256 hash of the primary reference DOI of this maturity indicator.
  4. A short name to distinguish the maturity indicator definition file

This MI is to indicate if number of measurements made and averaged to determine each zeta-potential is reported by the nano toxicity study data or not.

Maturity Indicator Name: The number of measurements made and averaged to determine each zeta-potential is reported by the nano toxicity study

This maturity indicator is extracted from the following paper Title: Guidance to improve the scientific value of zeta potential measurements in nanoEHS DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EN00136J

To which principle does it apply?

R1.3

What is being measured?

If number of measurements made and averaged to determine each zeta-potential is reported by the nano toxicity study data or not.

Why should we measure it?

The reliability of the zeta-potential measurement is at best ±2 mV or about ±10% of the measured value, so making multiple measurements (>6) and observing the trends in the measured zeta-potential values provides insights into the quality and reproducibility of the data. Taking replicate measurements and regularly inspecting electrodes for damage are also recommended.

What must be provided for the measurement?

If the value is measured and reported in the data, the following field(s) should appear in JSON-LD metadata:

Field Name Alternative terms
number of measurements number_of_measurements,
number-of-measurements,
NumberOfMeasurements

How is the measurement executed?

The "number of measurements" variable should be provided in a machine-readable format (JSON-LD) which can be queried using open universal protocol like HTTP.

What is/are considered valid result(s)?

The presence of the field "number of measurements" in the JSON-LD metadata means the measurement is reported which is the valid result.

For which digital resource(s) is this relevant? (or 'all')

For nano toxicity related datasets.

Examples of good practices (that would score well on this assessment)

{
 	"@context": {
 		"bs": "https://bioschemas.org/",
 		"schema": "https://schema.org/",
 		"citation": "schema:citation",
 		"name": "schema:name",
 		"url": "schema:url",
 		"variableMeasured": "schema:variableMeasured",
 		"unitText": "schema:unitText"
 	},
 	"@type": "schema:Dataset",
 	"name": "Dataset title",
 	"@id": "Dataset DOI",
 	"url": "Dataset URL",
 	"citation": "Dataset Citation/Publication",
 	"variableMeasured": [
 		{
 			"@type": "schema:PropertyValue",
 			"name": "number of measurements"
 		}
 	]
 }

Comments