As of 2 May 2018, we have knowledge of 2,992 peer-reviewed journal articles that make substantive use of GBIF-mediated data. Of these, 202 were published in 2018 alone, and for 50 of these, we were able to identify the specific data used in the paper.
Ideally, this happens because the author cites the data using the recommended download citation, e.g.
Sometimes, authors choose to cite the datasets directly, e.g.
- Rivas Pava M D P, Muñoz Lara D G, Ruiz Camayo M A, Fernández Trujillo L F, Muñoz Castro F A, Pérez Muñoz N (2017). Colección Mastozoológica del Museo de Historia Natural de la Universidad del Cauca. Universidad del Cauca. Occurrence Dataset https://doi.org/10.15472/ciasei accessed via GBIF.org on 2017-09-13.
In both cases, a DOI is included that allows us to identify the data and link it with the paper. However, as the numbers above show, this only happens in about 25 per cent of the cases.
As a consequence, I have started to reach out to authors systematically when I discover a new paper that uses GBIF-mediated data, but fails to cite the data properly. I have been doing this for about a month now, and overall, the response is positive. Once I have a bit more data, I’ll post an update.