Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37692117›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2023

Progress in the discovery of isopods (Crustacea: Peracarida)-is the description rate slowing down?

Lena Hartebrodt, Simon Wilson, Mark John Costello

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Lena HartebrodtInstitute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Simon WilsonSchool of Computer Science and Statistics, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Mark John CostelloFaculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Nord University, Bodø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taxonomic species are the best standardised metric of biodiversity. Therefore, there is broad scientific and public interest in how many species have already been named and how many more may exist. Crustaceans comprise about 6% of all named animal species and isopods about 15% of all crustaceans. Here, we review progress in the naming of isopods in relation to the number of people describing new species and estimate how many more species may yet be named by 2050 and 2100, respectively. In over two and a half centuries of discovery, 10,687 isopod species in 1,557 genera and 141 families have been described by 755 first authors. The number of authors has increased over time, especially since the 1950s, indicating increasing effort in the description of new species. Despite that the average number of species described per first author has declined since the 1910s, and the description rate has slowed down over the recent decades. Authors' publication lifetimes did not change considerably over time, and there was a distinct shift towards multi-authored publications in recent decades. Estimates from a non-homogeneous renewal process model predict that an additional 660 isopod species will be described by 2100, assuming that the rate of description continues at its current pace.

Indexed as

IsopodaAnimalsBiodiversityBiodiversityDescription rateIsopodaTaxonomic effort

Identifiers

PMID37692117
PMCPMC10484202

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.