I have the idea this havent been discussed before. Is there anyway to cite iNaturalist guidelines?
Im working in a manuscript where we used inaturalist data (yayyyy), and my sentence in the manuscript goes as follow
" Observations from iNaturalist documenting the occurrence of the xxxxxx spp in the Pacific coast of the Americas were reviewed and curated in accordance with the iNaturalist guidelines but they asked me to cite the inaturalist guidelines and then… I realized I have no idea how to cite them.
any comment on this would be very appreciated! and I know this would be useful for other researchers
2 Likes
Cita recomendada para este artículo:
Español
Gianni-Zurita R. [año]. Citas recomendadas para datos generados en iNat. Creado en 2021, iNaturalist: San Francisco, USA. Documento en línea. URL: https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/rafael_gianni/54823-citas-recomendadas-para-datos-generados-en-inat. Visitado: [mes año].
Inglés
Gianni-Zurita, R. [year]. Citas recomendadas para datos generados en iNat. Posted in 2021, iNaturalist.org. Online at: https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/rafael_gianni/54823-citas-recomendadas-para-datos-generados-en-inat. Accessed on [month year].
1 Like
Which guidelines are you referring to, specifically? You could cite the scientific research FAQ page in a format like this:
Observations from iNaturalist documenting the occurrence of the xxxxxx spp in the Pacific coast of the Americas were reviewed and curated in accordance with the iNaturalist guidelines (Science and Research FAQ, n.d.). [the n.d. stands for “no date”]
Science and Research FAQ. n.d. iNaturalist. Available from: https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/folders/151000547712 [accessed on DD MMM YYYY]
If you are referring to the curator guide or identification guidelines, you can cite those in a similar way.
4 Likes
Maybe this goes beyond the intended scope of your question, and I may just be missing the context or misunderstanding, but I think if I were a reader/reviewer, I’d be wondering about the purpose and process for reviewing the observations. If you’re trying to indicate that you validated the IDs of the observations included in your study, it might be more helpful to explain how you validated them (what traits were used for ID, did you screen out some observations based on missing details or poor quality, etc.), and that information wouldn’t be contained in the guildelines. If that’s all covered in the preceding sentences and you’re just trying to indicate that you didn’t break any of the site rules in your use or review of the data, then it could makes sense to cite the guidelines, but I think a bit more specificity could help.
Apologies if this isn’t relevant or what you were looking for, and I hope this didn’t come across as nit-picking or critical. I’m finishing up the methods section for a paper of my own right now, and if your experience is anything like mine has been, I imagine you are probably ready to be done and not looking for extra work haha.
6 Likes
I agree. I’d just cite the relevant “official” webpage in whatever format is appropriate for a website citation for your submission/document.
Your statement might be implying a large percentage of the observations you are dealing with have been looked at by experts.
For some genera at some locations it is true. Other genera at some locations have no experts active on iNaturalist.
If the taxa you are writing about is something rare, you could check the identifications and cite the key used.
If you are dealing with large numbers, checking a random sample would give you confidence in the dataset. You could then document your process of verification.
1 Like