Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25790121›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

From local checklists to online identification portals: a case study on vascular plants.

Stefano Martellos, Pier Luigi Nimis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stefano MartellosDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, via L. Giorgieri 10, Trieste, Italy.
Pier Luigi NimisDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, via L. Giorgieri 10, Trieste, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Checklists, the result of time-consuming exploration and painstaking bibliographic research, can be easily converted into online databases, which have the advantage of being updatable online in real time, and of reaching a much wider audience. However, thousands of local checklists (Natural Parks, protected areas, etc.) are still available on paper only, and most of those published online appear as dry lists of latin names, which strongly reduces their outreach for a wider audience. The University of Trieste has recently started the publication of several local checklists in a way that may be more appealing for the general public, by linking species' names to archives of digital resources, and especially to digital identification tools produced by software FRIDA (FRiendly IDentificAtion). The query interfaces were developed on the basis of feedback from a wide range of users. The result is no longer a simple list of names accessible on the Web, but a veritable multimedial, interactive portal to the biodiversity of a given area. This paper provides an example of how relevant added value can be given to local lists of taxa by embedding them in a complex system of biodiversity-related resources, making them usable for a much wider audience than a restricted circle of specialists, as testified by the almost 1.000.000 unique visitors reached in 2014. A critical mass of digital resources is also put at disposal of the scientific community by releasing them under a Creative Commons license.

Indexed as

ChecklistOnline SystemsUser-Computer InterfaceBiodiversityDatabases, FactualLicensurePlants

Identifiers

PMID25790121
PMCPMC4366101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.