↓ Skip to main content

Global Coordination and Standardisation in Marine Biodiversity through the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and Related Databases

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
318 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Global Coordination and Standardisation in Marine Biodiversity through the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and Related Databases
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0051629
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J. Costello, Philippe Bouchet, Geoff Boxshall, Kristian Fauchald, Dennis Gordon, Bert W. Hoeksema, Gary C. B. Poore, Rob W. M. van Soest, Sabine Stöhr, T. Chad Walter, Bart Vanhoorne, Wim Decock, Ward Appeltans

Abstract

The World Register of Marine Species is an over 90% complete open-access inventory of all marine species names. Here we illustrate the scale of the problems with species names, synonyms, and their classification, and describe how WoRMS publishes online quality assured information on marine species. Within WoRMS, over 100 global, 12 regional and 4 thematic species databases are integrated with a common taxonomy. Over 240 editors from 133 institutions and 31 countries manage the content. To avoid duplication of effort, content is exchanged with 10 external databases. At present WoRMS contains 460,000 taxonomic names (from Kingdom to subspecies), 368,000 species level combinations of which 215,000 are currently accepted marine species names, and 26,000 related but non-marine species. Associated information includes 150,000 literature sources, 20,000 images, and locations of 44,000 specimens. Usage has grown linearly since its launch in 2007, with about 600,000 unique visitors to the website in 2011, and at least 90 organisations from 12 countries using WoRMS for their data management. By providing easy access to expert-validated content, WoRMS improves quality control in the use of species names, with consequent benefits to taxonomy, ecology, conservation and marine biodiversity research and management. The service manages information on species names that would otherwise be overly costly for individuals, and thus minimises errors in the application of nomenclature standards. WoRMS' content is expanding to include host-parasite relationships, additional literature sources, locations of specimens, images, distribution range, ecological, and biological data. Species are being categorised as introduced (alien, invasive), of conservation importance, and on other attributes. These developments have a multiplier effect on its potential as a resource for biodiversity research and management. As a consequence of WoRMS, we are witnessing improved communication within the scientific community, and anticipate increased taxonomic efficiency and quality control in marine biodiversity research and management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 1%
Brazil 4 1%
United States 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 294 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 76 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 17%
Student > Master 41 13%
Other 26 8%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 52 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 157 49%
Environmental Science 43 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 3%
Computer Science 7 2%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 55 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,008,086
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#36,461
of 224,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,894
of 292,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#731
of 4,923 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,923 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.