DOI citations and journal publishers


#1

When studies published in scientific journals make use of GBIF-mediated data, we log how they cite GBIF–i.e. either 1) using the recommended format that includes a DOI, or 2) using a more generic format (e.g. simply mentioning the GBIF.org website).

So how are publishers doing? The following table shows citation type broken down by journal publisher:

Publisher DOI Generic Grand Total % DOI
Wiley 23 192 215 10.70%
Springer Nature 26 157 183 14.21%
Elsevier BV 16 118 134 11.94%
Public Library of Science (PLoS) 10 43 53 18.87%
Pensoft Publishers 19 23 42 45.24%
Oxford University Press (OUP) 5 33 38 13.16%
PeerJ 3 15 18 16.67%
The Royal Society 2 11 13 15.38%
MDPI AG 2 11 13 15.38%
Cambridge University Press (CUP) 4 7 11 36.36%
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1 6 7 14.29%
Informa UK Limited 2 5 7 28.57%
Frontiers Media SA 2 5 7 28.57%
Walter de Gruyter GmbH 2 4 6 33.33%
Magnolia Press 3 3 6 50.00%
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1 5 6 16.67%

A few caveats:

  • we’ve only been logged this data consistently since August 2017 so this data represents only about 25 per cent of all papers using GBIF-mediated data
  • only publishers with more than 5 known papers are included
  • studies that access data directly from the API and via an API-based script (such as rgbif, dismo, spocc, etc.) obtain data without triggering the generation of a DOI. As such, they don’t have DOI to cite but this distinction isn’t made in the data shown. These are included in the “generic” count.

#2

Thanks for including %s of DOI citations. Together with absolute numbers, this quite nicely tells which houses’ instructions to authors and reviewers, including subission / evaluation forms do well on recommended data citations, and which fail to inform authors / reviewers what is a good data citation practice.