Articles | Volume 7, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-7-45-2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-7-45-2025
Research article
 | 
25 Feb 2025
Research article |  | 25 Feb 2025

The need for fission-track data transparency and sharing

Murat T. Tamer, Ling Chung, Richard A. Ketcham, and Andrew J. W. Gleadow

Related authors

Confined fission-track revelation in apatite: how it works and why it matters
Richard A. Ketcham and Murat T. Tamer
Geochronology, 3, 433–464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-433-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-433-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Fission track
Short communication: Inverse correlation between radiation damage and fission-track etching time on monazite
Toru Nakajima, Shoma Fukuda, Shigeru Sueoka, Sota Niki, Tetsuo Kawakami, Tohru Danhara, and Takahiro Tagami
Geochronology, 6, 313–323, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-6-313-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-6-313-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short communication: Experimental factors affecting fission-track counts in apatite
Carolin Aslanian, Raymond Jonckheere, Bastian Wauschkuhn, and Lothar Ratschbacher
Geochronology, 4, 109–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-109-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-109-2022, 2022
Short summary
Deconvolution of fission-track length distributions and its application to dating and separating pre- and post-depositional components
Peter Klint Jensen and Kirsten Hansen
Geochronology, 3, 561–575, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-561-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-561-2021, 2021
Short summary
Confined fission-track revelation in apatite: how it works and why it matters
Richard A. Ketcham and Murat T. Tamer
Geochronology, 3, 433–464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-433-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-433-2021, 2021
Short summary
AI-Track-tive: open-source software for automated recognition and counting of surface semi-tracks using computer vision (artificial intelligence)
Simon Nachtergaele and Johan De Grave
Geochronology, 3, 383–394, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-383-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-383-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Ansberque, C., Chew, D. M., and Drost, K.: Apatite fission-track dating by LA-Q-ICP-MS imaging, Chem. Geol., 560, 119977, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119977, 2021. 
Aslanian, C., Jonckheere, R., Wauschkuhn, B., and Ratschbacher, L.: Short communication: Experimental factors affecting fission-track counts in apatite, Geochronology, 4, 109–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-109-2022, 2022. 
Balestrieri, M. L., Bigazzi, G., and Ghezzo, C.: The transantarctic mountains: a natural laboratory for apatite fission-track analysis. Results from Italian Antarctic expeditions, Radiat. Meas., 31, 621–626, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4487(99)00154-7, 1991. 
Barbarand, J., Hurford, T., and Carter, A.: Compositional and structural control of fission-track annealing in apatite, Chem. Geol., 198(1-2), 107-137, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2541(02)00424-2, 2003. 
Barnes, J. B., Ehlers, T. A., Insel, N., McQuarrie, N., and Poulsen, C. J.: Linking orography, climate, and exhumation across the central Andes, Geology, 40, 1135–1138, https://doi.org/10.1130/G33229.1, 2012. 
Download
Short summary
We present the first new image-based study to reveal how choices made by different analysts affect the results obtained by fission-track analysis. Participants analyzed an identical image dataset with varying grain quality. Experienced analysts tend to select lower numbers of unsuitable grains and conduct lower numbers of invalid length measurements. Fission-track studies need image data repositories, teaching modules, guidelines, an open science culture, and new approaches for calibration.

Share