[Taxacom] Showing the importance of natural history collections and the networks they are building

[Bob Mesibov]

Rod Page wrote:

"But regardless of that, I see citation as the flip side of what really matters, which is provenance. I cite papers to show you where I got an idea/data/evidence from. If you want to know what the evidence is you look at the cited work. So one way to think of this is that by providing stable identifiers for collections/data/specimens, natural history collections enable users to give the provenance of the data they use. In return the collections get a mechanism whereby they can track usage (i.e., data citation)."

I'm sure Rod is fully aware of this, but natural history collections have been doing this for a very long time. They provide registration (accession) numbers for each specimen lot examined. In my experience those numbers have a life of 20-50 years, after which a completely different number identifies the same specimen lot. I wonder if DOIs will last as long.

In cases where I've had to track specimens through a number change at a museum, I've used the original collection data: in the publication, on the specimen label and in the museum database. Sometimes I needed all three sets (they sometimes differ) to feel confident I had the right bug under my microscope. I'm not sure that specimen DOIs would make that job any easier.
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania
Home contact:
PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195