Finding scientific articles in a large digital archive: BioStor and the Biodiversity Heritage Library

Yesterday I uploaded a manuscript to Nature Precedings that describes the inner workings of BioStor. The title is "Finding scientific articles in a large digital archive: BioStor and the Biodiversity Heritage Library", and you can grab it here: hdl:10101/npre.2010.4928.1.

Manuscripts describing databases are usually pretty turgid affairs, and this isn't an exception, despite my attempts to spice it up with the tale of Leviathan, oops, Livyatan (see doi:10.1038/nature09381 and Wikipedia). Plus, I can't escape the thought that BioStor would have been a lot more fun to write if I'd used a key-value database like CouchDB. I fear this is often the way of things. By the time it comes to writing something up, you realise that if you could start over you'd do it rather differently.

Elsevier Grand Challenge paper out

At long last the peer-reviewed version of the paper "Enhanced display of scientific articles using extended metadata" (doi:10.1016/j.websem.2010.03.004), in which I describe my entry in the Elsevier Grand Challenge, has finally appeared in the journal Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web. The pre-print version of this paper has been online (hdl:10101/npre.2009.3173.1) for a year prior to appearance of the published version (24 April 2009 versus 3 April 2010), and the Challenge entry itself went online in December 2008. Unfortunately the published version has an awful typo in the title (that was in neither the manuscript nor the proofs).

Given this typo, the time lag between doing the work, writing the manuscript, and seeing it published, and the fact that I've already been to meetings where my invitation has been based the entry and the pre-print, I do wonder why on Earth would I bother with traditional publication (which is somewhat ironic, given the topic of the paper)?

Wikipedia manuscript

I've written up some thoughts on Wikipedia for a short invited review to appear (pending review) in Organisms, Environment, and Diversity (ISSN 1439-6092). The manuscript, entitled "Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia of life" is available as a preprint from Nature Precedings (hdl:10101/npre.2010.4242.1). The opening paragraph is:

In his 2003 essay E O Wilson outlined his vision for an "encyclopaedia of life" comprising "an electronic page for each species of organism on Earth", each page containing "the scientific name of the species, a pictorial or genomic presentation of the primary type specimen on which its name is based, and a summary of its diagnostic traits." Although the "quiet revolution” in biodiversity informatics has generated numerous online resources, including some directly inspired by Wilson’s essay (e.g., http://ispecies.org, http://www.eol.org), we are still some way from the goal of having available online all relevant information about a species, such as its taxonomy, evolutionary history, genomics, morphology, ecology, and behaviour. While the biodiversity community has been developing a plethora of databases, some with overlapping goals and duplicated content, Wikipedia has been slowly growing to the point where it now has over 100,000 pages on biological taxa. My goal in this essay is to explore the idea that, largely independent of the efforts of biodiversity informatics and well-funded international efforts, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) has emerged as potentially the best platform for fulfilling E O Wilson’s vision.

The content will be familiar to readers of this blog, although the essay is perhaps a slightly more sober assessment of Wikipedia than some of my blog posts would suggest. It was also the first manuscript I'd written in MS Word for a while (not a fun experience), and the first ever for which I'd used Zotero to manage the bibliography (which worked surprisingly well).