↓ Skip to main content

Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, January 2018
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
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
Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts
Published in
PeerJ, January 2018
DOI 10.7717/peerj.4157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gail E. Austen, Markus Bindemann, Richard A. Griffiths, David L. Roberts

Abstract

Emerging technologies have led to an increase in species observations being recorded via digital images. Such visual records are easily shared, and are often uploaded to online communities when help is required to identify or validate species. Although this is common practice, little is known about the accuracy of species identification from such images. Using online images of newts that are native and non-native to the UK, this study asked holders of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) licences (issued by UK authorities to permit surveying for this species) to sort these images into groups, and to assign species names to those groups. All of these experts identified the native species, but agreement among these participants was low, with some being cautious in committing to definitive identifications. Individuals' accuracy was also independent of both their experience and self-assessed ability. Furthermore, mean accuracy was not uniform across species (69-96%). These findings demonstrate the difficulty of accurate identification of newts from a single image, and that expert judgements are variable, even within the same knowledgeable community. We suggest that identification decisions should be made on multiple images and verified by more than one expert, which could improve the reliability of species data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 37%
Environmental Science 11 19%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 30 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,412,976
of 25,836,587 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#1,450
of 15,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,523
of 453,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#49
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,836,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 453,336 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 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.