Version  4.4 hört sich vielleicht nicht nach einem großen Versions-Schritt an, bringt aber Veränderungen mit sich, auf die viele Einrichtungen (auch aus Deutschland) lange gewartet haben: ein kontrolliertes Vokabular für Textpublikationstypen. Interessierten Metadaten-Expert:innen wird die Öffnung hin zu textuellen Publikationen beim Lesen des Titels der Schema-Dokumentation auffallen.

Assuring Appropriate Authorship. In our day-to-day work at GigaScience many of the most common and reoccurring problems we keep encountering relate to appropriate authorship. In this “publish or perish” world of science, getting authorship right is of course important.

[From July 2018, the Europe PMC repository will start indexing preprints. Making preprints discoverable through Europe PMC will make the science reported in preprints more widely discoverable and support their inclusion into workflows such as grant reporting, article citing and credit and attribution.

[It’s always frustrating to hit a paywall when you stumble across an exciting article.]{style=“font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”} [Until recently, for many of us the only legal way of getting hold of the publication was to purchase the paper in question. But that is no longer the case for millions of scientific publications thanks to ]{style=“font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt;

TL;DR; The Plant List is now in GBIF http://doi.org/10.15468/btkum2. Readers of this blog may recall that I've had a somewhat jaundiced view of The Plant List.

**That Was The Review Week That Was **If you’ve seen the #peerrevwk15 hashtag on social media, you may have noticed this week is the first ever Peer Review Week.

On Friday I discovered that BHL has started issuing CrossRef DOIs for articles, starting with the journal Revue Suisse de Zoologie . The metadata for these articles comes from BioStor. After a WTF and WWIC moment, I tweeted about this, and something of a Twitter storm (and email storm) ensued: To be clear, I'm very happy that BHL is finally assigning article-level DOIs, and that it is doing this via CrossRef.

I spent last Friday and Saturday at ( Research in the 21st Century: Data, Analytics and Impact , hashtag #ReCon_15) in Edinburgh. Friday 19th was conference day, followed by a hackday at CodeBase. There's a Storify archive of the tweets so you can get a sense of the meeting. Sitting in the audience a few things struck me. No identifier wars, DOIs have won and are everywhere.

Below I sketch what I believe is a straightforward way GBIF could tackle the issue of annotating and cleaning its data. It continues a series of posts Annotating GBIF: some thoughts, Rethinking annotating biodiversity data, and More on annotating biodiversity data: beyond sticky notes and wikis on this topic. Let's simplify things a little and state that GBIF at present is essentially an aggregation of Darwin Core Archive files.

I'm going to the TDWG Identifier Workshop this weekend, so I thought I'd jot down a few notes. The biodiversity informatics community has been at this for a while, and we still haven't got identifiers sorted out. From my perspective as both a data aggregator (e.g., BioNames) and a data provider (e.g., BioStor) there are four things I think we need to tackle in order to make significant progress.