References
- 1Belhajjame, K, et al. 2013. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. Lebo, T, Sahoo, S and McGuinness, D (eds.). W3C.
- 2Berman, F, Wilkinson, R and Wood, J. 2014. ‘Building Global Infrastructure for Data Sharing and Exchange Through the Research Data Alliance’. D-Lib Magazine, 20(1/2). DOI: 10.1045/january2014-berman
- 3Borek, L, et al. 2014.
‘Methods-TaDiRAH-Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities’ . DARIAH-DE and DiRTdirectory. Available at:http://tadirah.dariah.eu/vocab/?tema=73 . - 4Bornmann, L and Leydesdorff, L. 2014. ‘Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research’. EMBO reports, 15(12): 1228–1232. DOI: 10.15252/embr.201439608
- 5Boyle, B, et al. 2013. ‘The taxonomic name resolution service: an online tool for automated standardization of plant names’. BMC bioinformatics, 14: 16. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-16
- 6Brand, A, et al. 2015. ‘Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit’. Learned publishing: journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 28(2): 151–155. DOI: 10.1087/20150211
- 7Brase, J. 2009. ‘DataCite – A Global Registration Agency for Research Data’. In: 2009 Fourth International Conference on Cooperation and Promotion of Information Resources in Science and Technology.
IEEE , 257–261. DOI: 10.1109/COINFO.2009.66 - 8Cachuela-Palacio, M. 2006. ‘Towards an index of all known species: the Catalogue of Life, its rationale, design and use’. Integrative zoology, 1(1): 18–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2006.00007.x
- 9Friesike, S and Schildhauer, T. 2015.
‘Open Science: Many Good Resolutions, Very Few Incentives, Yet’ . In: Welpe, IM, et al. (eds.), Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations, 277–289. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_17 - 10Guralnick, R, et al. 2014. ‘The Trouble with Triplets in Biodiversity Informatics: A Data-Driven Case against Current Identifier Practices’. PloS one, 9(12):
e114069 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114069 - 11Guralnick, RPP, et al. 2015. ‘Community Next Steps for Making Globally Unique Identifiers Work for Biocollections Data’. ZooKeys, 494: 133–154. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.494.9352
- 12Haak, LL, et al. 2012. ‘ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers’. Learn. Publ., 25(4): 259–264. DOI: 10.1087/20120404
- 13Hobern, D, Hahn, A and Robertson, T. 2018. ‘Options to Apply the IGSN Model to Biodiversity Data’. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 2:
e27087 . DOI: 10.3897/biss.2.27087 - 14Ilik, V, et al. 2018. ‘OpenVIVO: Transparency in Scholarship’. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2: 12. DOI: 10.3389/frma.2017.00012
- 15Keene, S. 2012. Managing conservation in museums. 2nd, Revised. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780080510866
- 16Lehnert, K and Arko, R. 2016. ‘The IGSN Experience: Successes and Challenges of Implementing Persistent Identifiers for Samples’. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 18: 10798.
- 17Lehnert, K, et al. 2016. ‘COPDESS (Coalition for Publishing Data in the Earth & Space Sciences): An Update on Progress and Next Steps’. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 18: 16120.
- 18Lehnert, KA, et al. 2006. ‘The Digital Sample: Metadata, Unique Identification, and Links to Data and Publications’. In: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
- 19McMurry, JA, et al. 2017. ‘Identifiers for the 21st century: How to design, provision, and reuse persistent identifiers to maximize utility and impact of life science data’. PLoS biology, 15(6):
e2001414 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001414 - 20Mitchell, S, et al. 2011. ‘The VIVO ontology: enabling networking of scientists’. ACM Web Conference, 14–17.
- 21Ontology Improvement Task Force – VIVO – DuraSpace Wiki. 2018. Available at:
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/VIVO/Ontology+Improvement+Task+Force (Accessed: 24 August 2018). - 22OpenRIF community. GitHub. Available at:
https://github.com/openrif/community (Accessed: 24 August 2018). - 23Page, R. 2008. ‘Biodiversity informatics: the challenge of linking data and the role of shared identifiers’. Briefings in bioinformatics, 9(5): 345–354. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbn022
- 24Paskin, N. 2009.
‘Digital Object Identifier (DOI ®) System’ . In: Bates, MJ and Maack, MN (eds), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition, 1586–1592. CRC Press. DOI: 10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044418 - 25Perkins, J, et al. 2014. ‘From DiRT Categories to TaDiRAH, a Methods Taxonomy for Digital Humanities’. Proc. Int’l Conf. on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2014, 181–183.
- 26Piwowar, HA, Day, RS and Fridsma, DB. 2007. ‘Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate’. PloS one, 2(3):
e308 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 - 27Piwowar, HA and Vision, TJ. 2013. ‘Data reuse and the open data citation advantage’. PeerJ, 1:
e175 . DOI: 10.7717/peerj.175 - 28Priem, J and Piwowar, H. 2012. The launch of ImpactStory: using altmetrics to tell data-driven stories, Impact of Social Sciences. Available at:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/09/25/the-launch-of-impactstor/ (Accessed: 24 August 2018). - 29Pyle, RL. 2016. ‘Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names’. ZooKeys, (550): 261–281. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.550.10009
- 30Pyle, RL and Michel, E. 2008. ‘ZooBank: Developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying 250 years of biological information’. Zootaxa, 1950(1): 39–50. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.1950.1.6
- 31Rouhan, G, et al. 2017. ‘The time has come for Natural History Collections to claim co-authorship of research articles’. Taxon. International Association for Plant Taxonomy, 66(5): 1014–1016. DOI: 10.12705/665.2
- 32Shorthouse, D. 2017.
‘Proposed Extension to Darwin Core for People and their Roles in the Curation of Physical and Digital Objects’ . In: Pensoft Publishers, e19829. Pensoft Publishers. DOI: 10.3897/tdwgproceedings.1.19829 - 33Shorthouse, D. 2018. Agents Actions: Proposed Darwin Core Archive Extension. Available at:
https://github.com/dshorthouse/agents_actions (Accessed: 24 August 2018). - 34Simon, JDC and Car, NJ. 2015. ‘PROV and real things’. 21st International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM2015), 21.
- 35Suarez, AV and Tsutsui, ND. 2004. ‘The Value of Museum Collections for Research and Society’. Bioscience, 54(1): 66–74. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2
- 36TDWG attribution. Github. Available at:
https://github.com/tdwg/attribution (Accessed: 1 May 2019). - 37The Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry. (no date). Available at:
http://www.obofoundry.org/ . - 38Thessen, AE, et al. 2018.
‘20 GB in 10 minutes: a case for linking major biodiversity databases using an open socio-technical infrastructure and a pragmatic, cross-institutional collaboration’ . PeerJ Computer Science. PeerJ Inc., 4:e164 . DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.164 - 39Walls, RL, et al. 2014. ‘Semantics in support of biodiversity knowledge discovery: an introduction to the biological collections ontology and related ontologies’. PloS one, 9(3):
e89606 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089606 - 40Wieczorek, J, et al. 2012. ‘Darwin Core: An evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard’. PloS one, 7(1):
e29715 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029715