Dataset Information

The Importance of Species Name Synonyms in Literature Searches.

ABSTRACT: The synonyms of biological species names are shown to be an important component in comprehensive searches of electronic scientific literature databases but they are not well leveraged within the major literature databases examined. For accepted or valid species names in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) which have synonyms in the system, and which are found in citations within PLoS, PMC, PubMed or Scopus, both the percentage of species for which citations will not be found if synonyms are not used, and the percentage increase in number of citations found by including synonyms are very often substantial. However, there is no correlation between the number of synonyms per species and the magnitude of the effect. Further, the number of citations found does not generally increase proportionally to the number of synonyms available. Users looking for literature on specific species across all of the resources investigated here are often missing large numbers of citations if they are not manually augmenting their searches with synonyms. Of course, missing citations can have serious consequences by effectively hiding critical information. Literature searches should include synonym relationships and a new web service in ITIS, with examples of how to apply it to this issue, was developed as a result of this study, and is here announced, to aide in this.

SUBMITTER: Guala GF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5023114 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Importance of Species Name Synonyms in Literature Searches.

Guala Gerald F GF

PloS one 20160914 9

The synonyms of biological species names are shown to be an important component in comprehensive searches of electronic scientific literature databases but they are not well leveraged within the major literature databases examined. For accepted or valid species names in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) which have synonyms in the system, and which are found in citations within PLoS, PMC, PubMed or Scopus, both the percentage of species for which citations will not be found if sy ...[more]

PMID: 27627118

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Gesneriaceae genus Chiritopsis, confined almost exclusively to cave or cave-like microhabitats of limestone karsts of southern China, was described to distinguish it from Chirita by much smaller flowers and generally miniature plant sizes in the former genus. However, molecular phylogenetic analyses showed that Chiritopsis is polyphyletic and its species delimitation has been problematic. To understand how many times Chiritopsis-like species have evolved from within the recircumscribed Primulina and to further clarify their species identification, we sampled all but two recently described species of Chiritopsis-like Primulina and reconstructed their phylogenetic relationship based on DNA sequences of nuclear ITS and chloroplast trnL-F and trnH-psbA.ResultsWith 182 accessions of 165 taxa of Primulina sampled, our analyses placed the 40 accessions of 25 taxa of Chiritopsis-like Primulina in 17 unrelated positions, indicating at least 17 independent origins of the traits associated with caves or cave-like microhabitats. Of the 17 clades containing Chiritopsis-like Primulina, Clade 1 is composed of P. bipinnatifida, P. cangwuensis, P. jianghuaensis, P. lingchuanensis, and P. zhoui, as well as additional samples that show variable and overlapping morphology in leaf shapes. Clade 10 includes P. cordifolia, P. huangii, and P. repanda, while Primulina repanda var. guilinensis is not placed within Clade 10. Primulina glandulosa var. yangshuoensis is not placed in the same clade of P. glandulosa.ConclusionsBased on our data, P. cangwuensis, P. jianghuaensis, and P. lingchuanensis are proposed to synonymize under P. bipinnatifida, with P. zhoui treated as a variety of P. bipinnatifida. Primulina repanda var. guilinensis is transferred as P. subulata var. guilinensis comb. nov. and Primulina pseudoglandulosa nom. nov. is proposed for P. glandulosa var. yangshuoensis. One new species is named P. chingipengii to honor the late Dr. Ching-I Peng (1950-2018).

Project description:Abstract Repeatability is the cornerstone of science, and it is particularly important for systematic reviews. However, little is known on how researchers’ choice of database, and search platform influence the repeatability of systematic reviews. Here, we aim to unveil how the computer environment and the location where the search was initiated from influence hit results. We present a comparative analysis of time‐synchronized searches at different institutional locations in the world and evaluate the consistency of hits obtained within each of the search terms using different search platforms. We revealed a large variation among search platforms and showed that PubMed and Scopus returned consistent results to identical search strings from different locations. Google Scholar and Web of Science's Core Collection varied substantially both in the number of returned hits and in the list of individual articles depending on the search location and computing environment. Inconsistency in Web of Science results has most likely emerged from the different licensing packages at different institutions. To maintain scientific integrity and consistency, especially in systematic reviews, action is needed from both the scientific community and scientific search platforms to increase search consistency. Researchers are encouraged to report the search location and the databases used for systematic reviews, and database providers should make search algorithms transparent and revise access rules to titles behind paywalls. Additional options for increasing the repeatability and transparency of systematic reviews are storing both search metadata and hit results in open repositories and using Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to retrieve standardized, machine‐readable search metadata. The consistency level with which scientific search platforms return hits for the same search initiated at different locations and from different computing environments was investigated. Scopus and PubMed returned the same results regardless of the location or computing environment but Web of Science and Google Scholar varied substantially. Since this is a crucial issue for the repeatability of systematic reviews, action should be taken to improve the within‐database consistency in the returned search hits.

Project description:We describe seven new species of Selaginellasubg.Stachygynandrum (Selaginellaalstonii, Selaginellablepharodella, Selaginellacrinita, Selaginellamucronata, Selaginellamucugensis, Selaginellasaltuicola, and Selaginellasematophylla) from Brazil and discuss their possible affinities and conservation status. Scanning electron micrographs of stem sections, leaves, and spores are provided to illustrate the new taxa. In Selaginellaalstonii and Selaginellasaltuicola vegetative growth from strobilus tips is reported and discussed. Four of the new species are from the Espinhaço Mountain Range associated with Campos Rupestres (montane savannah/rocky fields) vegetation. Three of these (i.e., Selaginellablepharodella, Selaginellacrinita, and Selaginellamucugensis) were collected in the northern part of the range in Chapada Diamantina, state of Bahia, while Selaginellaalstonii is from the southern part of the range in the state of Minas Gerais. Selaginellamucronata is found in Atlantic Rainforest vegetation in the state of Espírito Santo, whereas Selaginellasaltuicola inhabits Cerrado (tropical savannah) vegetation in the state of Mato Grosso. Selaginellasematophylla is the most widely distributed of the new species and was collected in Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, and Rio de Janeiro states in Campos Rupestres and Atlantic Rainforest vegetation. Selaginellaalstonii occurs in rocky caves, Selaginellablepharodella, Selaginellacrinita, Selaginellamucugensis, and Selaginellasematophylla seem adapted to seasonally dry places, living on sandy or humid soils, Selaginellamucronata occupies humid, forest understory, and Selaginellasaltuicola is adapted to wet places associated with rocks or logs in waterfalls. Of the seven new species, six are considered local endemics (except for Selaginellasematophylla) because of their restricted currently known distributions to one or two localities within a single state in Brazil. Additionally, we propose new synonymy for Selaginellapalmiformis (syn. = Selaginellabahiensissubsp.manausensis, ? Selaginellamanausensis) and Selaginellavestiens (syn. = Selaginellafragillima); the last species is endemic to Brazil, recorded in the states of Goiás and Minas Gerais. Finally, based on literature discussed and this study, we conclude that the number of well-documented Brazilian Selaginella species is 61, of which 58 are native and three introduced and naturalized. These statistics are likely to change with further work on Selaginella from Brazil.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. METHODS:Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. RESULTS:A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n?=?132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. CONCLUSIONS:Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.

Dataset Information

The Importance of Species Name Synonyms in Literature Searches.

Publications

The Importance of Species Name Synonyms in Literature Searches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets