Citations and use update (presentation by Daniel Noesgaard)

(Please use this thread to continue discussions on the presentation given by @dnoesgaard on day 2 of GB27)

Link to presentation video:

Thank you @dnoesgaard for all the work, congratulations! I’m aware of all the manual work behind those results.
I want to ask you about the citations sources, because even when many use to #CiteTheDOI…(many) other not. Did you have some plan to deal, and avoid the generic citation for new papers?

1 Like

Thank you Danel for that very interesting presentation. Could you explain a bit about the degree to which the tracking of DOIs is manual as opposed to automated? Could the automated part be extended to cover citations of individual specimens- eg in taxonomic literature?
thanks, Alan


Hi Anabela, thanks for you comment.

We are still nudging all corresponding authors when we see generic citations. This effort helps us recover DOIs—probably in about 20 per cent of those papers—so that we can credit data publishers on the portal. In a handful of cases, this also leads to updated manuscripts errata to published papers.

That being said, we still have work to do trying to get journals and editors on board, so that ideally any paper citing GBIF should trigger a response during review asking “where’s the DOI?”


Hi Alan, great question, thanks for that.

Because of the low uptake of DOI-based data citations—not only by authors, but also downstream, i.e. from ensuring the DOI is in the right place, format, etc. to the journal including that DOI in the article metadata for it to be machine-readable—everything is still very much manual from our side.

That being said, any reference to GBIF-mediated data by DOI—whether a whole dataset or a subset of individual specimens in a download—can be cited and thus tracked—once discovered. This part of the setup is fully operational. Discovering these citations, however, is still manual in 99 per cent of the cases and relies on full-text search engines like Google Scholar.

1 Like

I agree if the DOI starts to be requested by reviewers (or even editors) this issue is going to reduce. Did you have a list or prioritaries journals?

We have made appropriate contacts and even started some discussions through a group called COPDESS, initiated through the AGU. It’s complex and requires system-wide thinking (and commitment) throughout the submissions and review workflow, so it is a slow process :woozy_face:

1 Like