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.