Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32982558›Full record

ArticleMycoKeys2020

When mycologists describe new species, not all relevant information is provided (clearly enough).

Louisa Durkin, Tobias Jansson, Marisol Sanchez, Maryia Khomich, Martin Ryberg, Erik Kristiansson, R Henrik Nilsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MycoKeys, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Description of the Fifth New Species ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Louisa DurkinDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, University of Gothenburg, Box 461, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden.
Tobias JanssonDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, University of Gothenburg, Box 461, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden.
Marisol SanchezDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Uppsala Biocentre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden wedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Maryia KhomichNofima - Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research, P.O. Box 210, 1431 Ås, Norway Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Oslo Norway.
Martin RybergDepartment of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6795-4349
Erik KristianssonDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden University of Technology and University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden.
R Henrik NilssonDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, University of Gothenburg, Box 461, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8052-0107

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taxonomic mycology struggles with what seems to be a perpetual shortage of resources. Logically, fungal taxonomists should therefore leverage every opportunity to highlight and visualize the importance of taxonomic work, the usefulness of taxonomic data far beyond taxonomy, and the integrative and collaborative nature of modern taxonomy at large. Is mycology really doing that, though? In this study, we went through ten years' worth (2009-2018) of species descriptions of extant fungal taxa - 1,097 studies describing at most ten new species - in five major mycological journals plus one plant journal. We estimated the frequency at which a range of key words, illustrations, and concepts related to ecology, geography, taxonomy, molecular data, and data availability were provided with the descriptions. We also considered a range of science-demographical aspects such as gender bias and the rejuvenation of taxonomy and taxonomists as well as public availability of the results. Our results show that the target audience of fungal species descriptions appears to be other fungal taxonomists, because many aspects of the new species were presented only implicitly, if at all. Although many of the parameters we estimated show a gradual, and in some cases marked, change for the better over time, they still paint a somewhat bleak picture of mycological taxonomy as a male-dominated field where the wants and needs of an extended target audience are often not understood or even considered. This study hopes to leave a mark on the way fungal species are described by putting the focus on ways in which fungal taxonomy can better anticipate the end users of species descriptions - be they mycologists, other researchers, the public at large, or even algorithms. In the end, fungal taxonomy, too, is likely to benefit from such measures.

Indexed as

collaborationgender equalitymetadatareproducibilityspecies descriptiontaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID32982558
PMCPMC7498475

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.