Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36196222›Full record

ReviewBioscience2022

Digital Extended Specimens: Enabling an Extensible Network of Biodiversity Data Records as Integrated Digital Objects on the Internet.

Alex R Hardisty, Elizabeth R Ellwood, Gil Nelson, Breda Zimkus, Jutta Buschbom, Wouter Addink, Richard K Rabeler, John Bates, Andrew Bentley, José A B Fortes and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The generaBiodiversity data journal · 2024
    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

18 authors.

Alex R HardistyCardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0767-4310
Elizabeth R EllwoodFlorida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1602-1917
Gil NelsonFlorida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Breda ZimkusMuseum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.
Jutta BuschbomStatistical Genetics, Ahrensburg, Germany.
Wouter AddinkNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Richard K RabelerUniversity of Michigan Herbarium, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States.
John BatesField Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Andrew BentleyBiodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States.
José A B FortesUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Sara HansenCentral Michigan University Herbarium, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, United States.
James A MacklinAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Austin R MastDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States.
Joseph T MillerGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anna K MonfilsCentral Michigan University Herbarium, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3553-6430
Deborah L PaulUniversity of Illinois Urbana Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States.
Elycia WallisAtlas of Living Australia, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael WebsterMacaulay Library, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7585-4578

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The early twenty-first century has witnessed massive expansions in availability and accessibility of digital data in virtually all domains of the biodiversity sciences. Led by an array of asynchronous digitization activities spanning ecological, environmental, climatological, and biological collections data, these initiatives have resulted in a plethora of mostly disconnected and siloed data, leaving to researchers the tedious and time-consuming manual task of finding and connecting them in usable ways, integrating them into coherent data sets, and making them interoperable. The focus to date has been on elevating analog and physical records to digital replicas in local databases prior to elevating them to ever-growing aggregations of essentially disconnected discipline-specific information. In the present article, we propose a new interconnected network of digital objects on the Internet-the Digital Extended Specimen (DES) network-that transcends existing aggregator technology, augments the DES with third-party data through machine algorithms, and provides a platform for more efficient research and robust interdisciplinary discovery.

Indexed as

biodiversity collectionsDigital Extended Specimendigital specimenextended specimennatural history

Identifiers

PMID36196222
PMCPMC9525127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.