In some recent posts I've been exploring the quality of GBIF's taxonomic data. I've done some further analyses and decided to write this up in something more than a blog post. I'm writing a draft which you can see on GitHub. It tackles just one issue, namely what happens when you combine taxonomic names from multiple sources and don't know that some of those names are synonyms.

Bob Mesibov (who has been a guest author on this blog) recently published a paper on data quality in in ZooKeys : In this paper Bob documents some significant discrepancies between data in his Millipedes of Australia (MoA) database and the equivalent data in the Atlas of Living Australia and GBIF (disclosure, I was a reviewer of the paper, and also sit on GBIF's science committee). This paper spawned a thread on TAXACOM, and also came

Hot on the heels of Geoffrey Nunberg's essay about the train wreck that is Google books metadata (see my earlier post) comes Google Scholar’s Ghost Authors, Lost Authors, and Other Problems by Péter Jacsó. It's a fairly scathing look at some of the problems with the quality of Google Scholar's metadata. Now, Google Scholar isn't perfect, but it's come to play a key role in a variety of bibliographic tools, such as Mendeley, and Papers.

I've been playing recently with the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), and am starting to get a sense for the complexities (and limitations) of the metadata BHL stores about publications. The more I look at BHL the more I think the resource is (a) wonderfully useful and (b) hampered by some dodgy metadata.

As part of my Quixotic attempt to construct a wiki of taxonomic names, I'm building a database of names and links. My current plan is to seed this with the NCBI taxonomy. What I want to do is flesh out the NCBI taxonomy with authorities and links to the original literature. At the moment the NCBI taxonomy is almost "nude", lacking links to the literature behind the names.

D. Ross Robertson has published a paper entitled "Global biogeographical data bases on marine fishes: caveat emptor" (doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00519.x - DOI is broken, you can get the article here). The paper concludes: As I've noted elsewhere on this blog, and as demonstrated by Yesson et al.'s paper on legume records in GBIF (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001124) (not cited by Robertson), there are major problems with geographical information

Interesting paper in PLoS ONE (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001124) on the quality of data housed in GBIF. The study looked at 630,871 georeferenced legume records in GBIF, and concluded that 84% of these records are valid.