4.3 Article

Using taxonomic treatments to assess an author's career: the impactful Jocelia Grazia

期刊

ZOOTAXA
卷 4958, 期 1, 页码 12-33

出版社

MAGNOLIA PRESS
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4958.1.4

关键词

Open access; taxonomic treatments; TreatmentBank; taxonomic range; biography

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through a descriptive analysis of the bibliographic production of Dr. Jocelia Grazia, it was found that she published 200 new names, including 183 species and 17 genera, with a total of 1,444 taxonomic treatments. Additionally, her publications contained 544 figures, 50 tables, 2,242 references, 2,107 materials citations, and 1,101 treatment citations.
Here we present a descriptive analysis of the bibliographic production of the world-renowned heteropterist Dr. Jocelia Grazia and comments on her taxonomic reach based on extracted taxonomic treatments. We analyzed a total of 219 published documents, including scientific papers, scientific notes, and book chapters. Additionally, we applied the Plazi workflow to extract taxonomic treatments, images, tables, treatment citations and materials citations, and references from 75 different documents in accordance with the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles and made them available on the Biodiversity Literature Repository (BLR), hosted on Zenodo, and on TreatmentBank. We found that Dr. Grazia published 200 new names, including species (183) and genera (17), and 1,444 taxonomic treatments in total. From these, 104 and 581, respectively, were extracted after applying the Plazi Workflow. A total of 544 figures, 50 tables, 2,242 references, 2,107 materials citations, and 1,101 treatment citations were also extracted. In order to make her publications properly citable and accessible, we assigned DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) for all publications that lacked this persistent identifier, including those that were not processed (88 in total), therefore enhancing the open-access share of her publications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据