To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data

Abstract

Growing concerns about the quality of aggregated biodiversity data are lowering trust in largescale data networks. Aggregators frequently respond to quality concerns by recommending that biologists work with original data providers to correct errors "at the source". We show that this strategy falls systematically short of a full diagnosis of the underlying causes of distrust. In particular, trust in an aggregator is not just a feature of the data signal quality provided by the sources to the aggregator, but also a consequence of the social design of the aggregation process and the resulting power balance between individual data contributors and aggregators. The latter have created an accountability gap by downplaying the authorship and significance of the taxonomic hierarchies -frequently called "backbones" -they generate, and which are in effect novel classification theories that operate at the core of data-structuring process. The Darwin Core standard for sharing occurrence records plays an under-appreciated role in maintaining the accountability gap, because this standard lacks the syntactic structure needed to preserve the taxonomic coherence of data packages submitted for aggregation, potentially leading to inferences that no individual source would support. Since high-quality data packages can mirror competing and conflicting classifications, i.e., unsettled systematic research, this plurality must be accommodated in the design of biodiversity data integration. Looking forward, a key directive is to develop new technical pathways and social incentives for experts to contribute directly to the validation of taxonomically coherent data packages as part of a greater, trustworthy aggregation process.

An r package and online resource for macroevolutionary studies using the ray‐finned fish tree of life

“…As concerns around data curation and cleaning in large data aggregations become increasingly visible in biological research (Franz & Sterner, ), the ease of use of the tooling around this large, well‐curated dataset provides a framework for how concerns around data quality might be assuaged. Further development of the website and r package will focus on adding more pre‐computed analyses and figures, which will provide more starting points for researchers hoping to extend and reuse these resources.…”

Verbalizing phylogenomic conflict: Representation of node congruence across competing reconstructions of the neoavian explosion

“…An initial answer would point to the creation of an e-journal, where multi-phylogeny and -taxonomy alignments can be published either as stand-alone articles or in association with separate publications of new tree reconstructions. The platform of a formal journal best responds to expert needs to receive academic credit [63]. Knowledge systems such as [64] could represent the information input and output.…”

taxadb: A high‐performance local taxonomic database interface

“…Names may also have an ambiguous resolution wherein a name may be resolved by a different provider than the one specified, either as an accepted name or a synonym. Mapping between providers represent a meaningful scientific statement requiring an understanding of the underlying taxonomic concepts of each provider (Franz & Peet, 2009; Franz & Sterner, 2018; Lepage, Vaidya, & Guralnick, 2014). The spirit of taxadb is not to automate steps that require expert knowledge but to provide access to multiple potential ‘taxonomic theories’.…”