ArticleZooKeys2022
More discussion of minimalist species descriptions and clarifying some misconceptions contained in Meier et al. 2021.
Article in ZooKeys, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a response to a preprint version of "A re-analysis of the data in Sharkey et al.'s (2021) minimalist revision reveals that BINs do not deserve names, but BOLD Systems needs a stronger commitment to open science", https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441626v2. Meier et al. strongly criticized Sharkey et al.'s publication in which 403 new species were deliberately minimally described, based primarily on COI barcode sequence data. Here we respond to these criticisms. The following points are made: 1) Sharkey et al. did not equate BINs with species, as demonstrated in several examples in which multiple species were found to be in single BINs. 2) We reiterate that BINs were used as a preliminary sorting tool, just as preliminary morphological identification commonly sorts specimens based on color and size into unit trays; despite BINs and species concepts matching well over 90% of species, this matching does not equate to equality. 3) Consensus barcodes were used only to provide a diagnosis to conform to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature just as consensus morphological diagnoses are. The barcode of a holotype is definitive and simply part of its cellular morphology. 4) Minimalist revisions will facilitate and accelerate future taxonomic research, not hinder it. 5) We refute the claim that the BOLD sequences of
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.