Closed connorcoley closed 2 years ago
Would probably also be good to include the number of reactions for each dataset; we can make this into a table instead of just a list.
The new table looks great (except the USPTO attribution is to "we, D."). This is making me realize we should be enforcing more meaningful descriptions of datasets. Should this table also include the dataset's name?
PTAL; added names where available (and used 'link' when not). Also fixed the Lowe dataset citation. The downside is that the table overflows a bit now and it's hard to see the descriptions...
I think the additional information is nice even if it makes the table wider. I will reiterate that we should start enforcing that names/descriptions be informative
Swapped "description" and "reactions" columns to make it a bit easier to read.
This will clarify where contributions came from in terms of specific figures/tables as subsets of papers, which should help us detect duplicate submissions.