6,442 research outputs found

    Surfacing the deep data of taxonomy

    Get PDF
    Taxonomic databases are perpetuating approaches to citing literature that may have been appropriate before the Internet, often being little more than digitised 5 × 3 index cards. Typically the original taxonomic literature is either not cited, or is represented in the form of a (typically abbreviated) text string. Hence much of the “deep data” of taxonomy, such as the original descriptions, revisions, and nomenclatural actions are largely hidden from all but the most resourceful users. At the same time there are burgeoning efforts to digitise the scientific literature, and much of this newly available content has been assigned globally unique identifiers such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), which are also the identifier of choice for most modern publications. This represents an opportunity for taxonomic databases to engage with digitisation efforts. Mapping the taxonomic literature on to globally unique identifiers can be time consuming, but need be done only once. Furthermore, if we reuse existing identifiers, rather than mint our own, we can start to build the links between the diverse data that are needed to support the kinds of inference which biodiversity informatics aspires to support. Until this practice becomes widespread, the taxonomic literature will remain balkanized, and much of the knowledge that it contains will linger in obscurity

    Large-Scale Analysis of the Accuracy of the Journal Classification Systems of Web of Science and Scopus

    Full text link
    Journal classification systems play an important role in bibliometric analyses. The two most important bibliographic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, each provide a journal classification system. However, no study has systematically investigated the accuracy of these classification systems. To examine and compare the accuracy of journal classification systems, we define two criteria on the basis of direct citation relations between journals and categories. We use Criterion I to select journals that have weak connections with their assigned categories, and we use Criterion II to identify journals that are not assigned to categories with which they have strong connections. If a journal satisfies either of the two criteria, we conclude that its assignment to categories may be questionable. Accordingly, we identify all journals with questionable classifications in Web of Science and Scopus. Furthermore, we perform a more in-depth analysis for the field of Library and Information Science to assess whether our proposed criteria are appropriate and whether they yield meaningful results. It turns out that according to our citation-based criteria Web of Science performs significantly better than Scopus in terms of the accuracy of its journal classification system

    The New Knowledge Environment: Quality Initiatives in Health Sciences Libraries

    Get PDF
    published or submitted for publicatio

    Nanoinformatics: developing new computing applications for nanomedicine

    Get PDF
    Nanoinformatics has recently emerged to address the need of computing applications at the nano level. In this regard, the authors have participated in various initiatives to identify its concepts, foundations and challenges. While nanomaterials open up the possibility for developing new devices in many industrial and scientific areas, they also offer breakthrough perspectives for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases. In this paper, we analyze the different aspects of nanoinformatics and suggest five research topics to help catalyze new research and development in the area, particularly focused on nanomedicine. We also encompass the use of informatics to further the biological and clinical applications of basic research in nanoscience and nanotechnology, and the related concept of an extended ?nanotype? to coalesce information related to nanoparticles. We suggest how nanoinformatics could accelerate developments in nanomedicine, similarly to what happened with the Human Genome and other -omics projects, on issues like exchanging modeling and simulation methods and tools, linking toxicity information to clinical and personal databases or developing new approaches for scientific ontologies, among many others

    MycoBank gearing up for new horizons.

    Get PDF
    MycoBank, a registration system for fungi established in 2004 to capture all taxonomic novelties, acts as a coordination hub between repositories such as Index Fungorum and Fungal Names. Since January 2013, registration of fungal names is a mandatory requirement for valid publication under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICN). This review explains the database innovations that have been implemented over the past few years, and discusses new features such as advanced queries, registration of typification events (MBT numbers for lecto, epi- and neotypes), the multi-lingual database interface, the nomenclature discussion forum, annotation system, and web services with links to third parties. MycoBank has also introduced novel identification services, linking DNA sequence data to numerous related databases to enable intelligent search queries. Although MycoBank fills an important void for taxon registration, challenges for the future remain to improve links between taxonomic names and DNA data, and to also introduce a formal system for naming fungi known from DNA sequence data only. To further improve the quality of MycoBank data, remote access will now allow registered mycologists to act as MycoBank curators, using Citrix software

    BioNames: linking taxonomy, texts, and trees

    Get PDF
    BioNames is a web database of taxonomic names for animals, linked to the primary literature and, wherever possible, to phylogenetic trees. It aims to provide a taxonomic “dashboard” where at a glance we can see a summary of the taxonomic and phylogenetic information we have for a given taxon and hence provide a quick answer to the basic question “what is this taxon?” BioNames combines classifications from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and GenBank, images from the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), animal names from the Index of Organism Names (ION), and bibliographic data from multiple sources including the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) and CrossRef. The user interface includes display of full text articles, interactive timelines of taxonomic publications, and zoomable phylogenies. It is available at http://bionames.org
    • 

    corecore