Feature Request - Collection Dashboard Priorities

[Jegelewicz]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
From #3983

Describe what you're trying to accomplish
Determine the most basic wish list for an institution/collection dashboard

Describe the solution you'd like
Pare down the list of dashboard wishes to something we can accomplish

Describe alternatives you've considered
We keep talking about it an nothing happens!

[Jegelewicz]

From today's Collection Dashboard Committee Meeting.

@dustymc @mkoo @lin-fred @jcabbott72 @cassandrabarber37 @acdoll @campmlc

the priorities include:

Publications and citations

• Total number of publications citing records
• Total by year (of publication)

Taxonomic summaries

• orders
• families
• cultural divisions?

Geographic coverage

• By country (maybe list top 10, then all else?)
• % georeferenced
• Map of collection localities
• Map of use localities
• Map of creation localities

Collection Effort

• Total number of records
• Total by year (of collection)
• Totals by month (of collection)

Images/media

• Total number of images
• Total number of documents
• Total by year (of image creation)

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc can you provide the link to that pubs/citation thing you showed us in the meeting?

[dustymc]

https://arctos.database.museum/info/publicationbycollection.cfm?collection_id=1&citationonly=true&peerr=

[Jegelewicz]

During a Symbiota webinar yesterday I discovered that they add the GBIF citations widget to their collections - could we do this for ours?

https://www.gbif.org/article/1E6v02SFQyhupvB7JqDXPN/citation-widget

Also - I think adding the GBIF doi to any collections in Arctos that have one would make sense.

UTEP Plants:

https://doi.org/10.15468/yhb6ky

[dustymc]

could we do this

I hate everything about the GBIF "citation" model. We have a tremendous amount of work invested in making science replicable - the intersection of specimens and publications that we, and most everyone else, call "citations." Downloading huge swaths of data and even SORTA insinuating that somehow constitutes a 'citation' - and that is precisely what most, if not all, GBIF citations are - is evil.

Linking to the GBIF thingywidget doesn't get my blood pressure up quite so much, even if they refuse to reuse our identifiers. Adding "random GBIF page thingee identifier" to table collection and displaying it somewhere is actionable and could go back to Issues if there's some reason to do so. (I don't think I see one??)

[Jegelewicz]

Not saying I disagree - but presenting the number of citations at GBIF to a provost or NSF seems to get $ for digitization/better data?

[dustymc]

Yea that's probably a compelling argument, I'd still like to somehow attempt to avoid tainting the word 'citation'....

[Jegelewicz]

Good luck with that - I think the damage is done.

[dustymc]

Interesting idea. We say "Arctos has 378430 citations" (really), people (esp. admin types) hear 'smashed GBIF button maybe once' - yikes, maybe we need a better term for what we do?