↓ Skip to main content

The Trouble with Triplets in Biodiversity Informatics: A Data-Driven Case against Current Identifier Practices

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
The Trouble with Triplets in Biodiversity Informatics: A Data-Driven Case against Current Identifier Practices
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0114069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Guralnick, Tom Conlin, John Deck, Brian J. Stucky, Nico Cellinese

Abstract

The biodiversity informatics community has discussed aspirations and approaches for assigning globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) to biocollections for nearly a decade. During that time, and despite misgivings, the de facto standard identifier has become the "Darwin Core Triplet", which is a concatenation of values for institution code, collection code, and catalog number associated with biocollections material. Our aim is not to rehash the challenging discussions regarding which GUID system in theory best supports the biodiversity informatics use case of discovering and linking digital data across the Internet, but how well we can link those data together at this moment, utilizing the current identifier schemes that have already been deployed. We gathered Darwin Core Triplets from a subset of VertNet records, along with vertebrate records from GenBank and the Barcode of Life Data System, in order to determine how Darwin Core Triplets are deployed "in the wild". We asked if those triplets follow the recommended structure and whether they provide an easy and unambiguous means to track from specimen records to genetic sequence records. We show that Darwin Core Triplets are often riddled with semantic and syntactic errors when deployed and curated in practice, despite specifications about how to construct them. Our results strongly suggest that Darwin Core Triplets that have not been carefully curated are not currently serving a useful role for relinking data. We briefly consider needed next steps to overcome current limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Germany 2 4%
Sweden 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 47 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Professor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 59%
Environmental Science 6 11%
Computer Science 5 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 6 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,562,742
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#65,346
of 199,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,113
of 363,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#862
of 4,046 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 363,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,046 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.