The time has come for Natural History Collections to claim co‐authorship of research articles

Rouhan, Germinal; Dorr, Laurence J.; Gautier, Laurent; Clerc, Philippe; Müller, Serge; Gaudeul, Myriam

doi:10.12705/665.2

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…NHCs are frequently funded on their research relevance, which is determined both from 168 within and outside institutions. When researchers view specimen images or harvest 169 metadata from aggregators, NHCs that contribute these data often receive little to no 170 credit (Rouhan et al, 2017). A mechanism for referencing these source collections needs 171 to be embedded in the publication process that requires that NHCs be acknowledged and 172 notified when publications incorporate their data.…”

Section: The Relevance and Importance Of Digitization 38mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitization and the future of natural history collections

Hedrick

Heberling

Meineke

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Relevance and Importance Of Digitization 38mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitization and the future of natural history collections

Hedrick

Heberling

Meineke

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the importance of collections, maintaining them and curating them to keep them up to date often remains challenging for many reasons (e.g., funding and staffing needs) (Rouhan et al, 2017).…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Proper Attribution for Curation and Maintenance of Research Collections: Metadata Recommendations of the RDA/TDWG Working Group

Thessen

Woodburn

Koureas

et al. 2019

CODATA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research collections are an important tool for understanding the Earth, its systems, and human interaction. Despite the importance of collections, many are not maintained or curated as thoroughly as we would like. Part of the reason for this is the lack of professional reward for collection, curation, or maintenance. To address this gap in attribution metadata, the Research Data Alliance (RDA) and the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) organization co-endorsed a Working Group to create recommendations for the representation of attribution metadata. After 18 months, this Working Group recommended the use of PROV entities and properties to link people (Agent), the curatorial actions they perform (Activity), and the digital or physical objects they are curating (Entity). Assigning a Role to an Agent is optional. These recommendations are discussed in the context of the RDA, TDWG, and existing standards. Future work includes adapting these recommendations to the specific needs of TDWG and developing a pilot application in collaboration with ORCID and the Data Futures project.

show abstract

“…NHCs are frequently funded on their research relevance, which is determined both from within and outside institutions. When researchers view specimen images or harvest metadata from aggregators, NHCs that contribute these data often receive little to no credit (Rouhan et al, 2017). A mechanism for referencing these source collections needs to be embedded in the publication process that requires that NHCs be acknowledged and notified when publications incorporate their data.…”

Section: Digitization Workflows and Linking Data-the Practice Of Digimentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitization and the future of natural history collections

Hedrick

Heberling

Meineke

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural history collections (NHCs) are the foundation of historical baselines for assessing anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity. Along these lines, the online mobilization of specimens via digitization–the conversion of specimen data into accessible digital content–has greatly expanded the use of NHC collections across a diversity of disciplines. We broaden the current vision of digitization (Digitization 1.0)–whereby specimens are digitized within NHCs–to include new approaches that rely on digitized products rather than the physical specimen (Digitization 2.0). Digitization 2.0 builds upon the data, workflows, and infrastructure produced by Digitization 1.0 to create digital-only workflows that facilitate digitization, curation, and data linkages, thus returning value to physical specimens by creating new layers of annotation, empowering a global community, and developing automated approaches to advance biodiversity discovery and conservation. These efforts will transform large-scale biodiversity assessments to address fundamental questions including those pertaining to critical modern issues of global change.

show abstract

The time has come for Natural History Collections to claim co‐authorship of research articles

Cited by 22 publications

References 27 publications

Digitization and the future of natural history collections

Digitization and the future of natural history collections

Proper Attribution for Curation and Maintenance of Research Collections: Metadata Recommendations of the RDA/TDWG Working Group

Digitization and the future of natural history collections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About