ArticleBiology letters2021
Getting science priorities straight: how to increase the reliability of specimen identification?
Article in Biology letters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Species Delimitation and Cryptic Diversity inInsects · 2025Article
- From species descriptions to diversity patterns: the validation of taxonomic data as a keystone for ant diversity studies reproducibility and accuracy.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Wood and bark structure inAoB PLANTS · 2023Article
- Using the Integrative Approach to Update a Gap of One Century: Redescription and New Distribution Records of the South American TarantulasZoological studies · 2023Article
- Checklist of newly-vouchered annelid taxa from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, central Pacific Ocean, based on morphology and genetic delimitation.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
- Sticky Pi is a high-frequency smart trap that enables the study of insect circadian activity under natural conditions.PLoS biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
'We advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript'. This is a standard feedback journals give to non-native English speakers. Journals are justifiably concerned with grammar but do not show the same rigour about another step crucial to biological research: specimen identification. Surveying the author guidelines of 100 journals, we found that only 6% of them request explicitly citation of the literature used in specimen identification. Authors hamper readers from contesting specimen identification whenever vouchers, identification methods, and taxon concepts are not provided. However, unclear taxonomic procedures violate the basic scientific principle of reproducibility. The scientific community must continuously look for practical alternatives to improve taxonomic identification and taxonomic verification. We argue that voucher pictures are an accessible, cheap and time-effective alternative to mitigate (not abolish) bad taxonomy by exposing preventable misidentifications. Voucher pictures allow scientists to judge specimen identification actively, based on available data. The popularization of high-quality image devices, photo-identification technologies and computer vision algorithms yield accurate scientific photo-documentation, improving taxonomic procedures. Taxonomy is timeless, transversal and essential to most scientific disciplines in biological sciences. It is time to demand rigour in taxonomic identifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.