ArticleBiodiversity data journal2026
A user-centric framework for harmonizing scientific name usage.
Article in Biodiversity data journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating scanned literature and online sources to build a data text collection for plant biodiversity.Biodiversity data journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity data linkage is a prerequisite for addressing pressing societal and research questions. Digitisation of resources has progressed rapidly, but this has led to a number of parallel approaches for datasets and services, making it difficult for users to identify the appropriate tool for their requirements. While scientific names are a key element for data linkage, they are not fully suited to this role. Many of them are not unique identifiers for taxa (such as the species that form the basic building block of a large part of biodiversity information) because taxonomic research has resulted in name changes. Likewise, usage is prone to errors like misspellings or misapplication of nomenclatural rules. This complexity and unreliability may demotivate data providers from readying their valuable datasets for integration into an interlinked landscape of biodiversity information. Correct linking of scientific names is an important element in this process of linking data from various sources. Aggregated taxonomic datasets and name-matching services are an essential infrastructure to build tools for this purpose and are increasingly using unique, resolvable and persistent name identifiers. Accessing the aggregated dataset via these identifiers can also display connections between the names within the dataset, linking, orthographic variants to correct spelling, synonyms to accepted taxon name etc. External datasets that hold valuable research and usage information as taxon-associated data can also be linked directly via these identifiers. This helps them to meet the FAIR data criteria (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Name matching finds the aggregator's name identifier, adding this identifier to the local data record may help to further interconnect biodiversity information, if data providers are motivated to partake in this process of enabling data linkage. We posit that this motivation can be increased by simplifying the process of choosing the right method for their specific needs, which may vary widely. We thus propose a framework that helps users to select the optimal workflow to address these needs. This involves: (i) identifying and categorising the specific criteria that characterise different user needs; (ii) based on these criteria, defining the necessary metadata both for taxonomic datasets accessed by name-matching services and the name-matching services themselves; (iii) providing tools based on these metadata that will allow users to interactively and confidently choose the best-fit target dataset and name matching service for their specific purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.