ArticlePeerJ2022
Wikidata and the bibliography of life.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the effectiveness of ontology-grounded AI term extraction using OntoGPT for environmental evidence synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2026Article
- Wikidata for botanists: benefits of collaborating and sharing Linked Open Data.Annals of botany · 2025Article
- Current and future directions in network biology.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Ten years and a million links: building a global taxonomic library connecting persistent identifiers for names, publications and people.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
- Creating a multi-linked dynamic dataset: a case study of plant genera named for women.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
- Paying it forward: Crowdsourcing the harmonisation and linking of taxon names and biodiversity identifiers.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological taxonomy rests on a long tail of publications spanning nearly three centuries. Not only is this literature vital to resolving disputes about taxonomy and nomenclature, for many species it represents a key source-indeed sometimes the only source-of information about that species. Unlike other disciplines such as biomedicine, the taxonomic community lacks a centralised, curated literature database (the "bibliography of life"). This article argues that Wikidata can be that database as it has flexible and sophisticated models of bibliographic information, and an active community of people and programs ("bots") adding, editing, and curating that information.
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.