Approaches to the Automated Tracking of Taxonomic Research Activities
David Fichtmueller · Publishing and Communications Promoting Biodiversity, Natural History Collections, People, Data and Data Standards
Summaries and key moments are machine-produced. Check the recording for the speaker’s exact words.
The short versionTETTRIX aims to build a machine-run, regularly updated picture of who is doing taxonomy on what and where, and is asking the community which sources it is missing.
What this was about
David Fichtmueller introduced work package 1 of the newly started EU project TETTRIX, which will automatically gather ongoing taxonomic research activities from many sources into a central database (TaxoTrack), align them with taxonomic backbones and identifiers, and produce outputs such as maps, gap analyses, dashboards and policy briefs. He described how it builds on TETTRIs expertise assessments from publications (OpenAlex, Meise) and GBIF specimen data (Berlin), laid out the partner-led source streams, and asked the audience how their research could be detected. Feedback stressed ORCIDs on publications, registering nomenclatural acts, and institutional evaluation reports as sources.
Why it matters. A systematic, repeatable overview of taxonomic research activity could expose understudied taxa and regions and inform funders and policy makers, but it depends on the research being machine-detectable through identifiers such as ORCID.
In the room
- TETTRIX (successor of TETTRIs) started in September 2026; work package 1 will automatically gather ongoing taxonomic research activities, store them centrally and align them with taxonomic backbones.
- Earlier TETTRIs work assessed expertise from publications filtered in OpenAlex (Meise) and from GBIF specimen data (Berlin); the specimen approach was harder because person data in GBIF are ambiguous and rarely carry identifiers.
- Planned source streams: taxonomic publication databases incl. sub-article data (Pensoft: BLR, Biodiversity PMC, OpenBiodiv), funding records and project registries (UFZ Leipzig), taxonomic data networks and name registries (Berlin, Meise, Prague with a Central/Eastern European focus), 'dark' pre-naming activity via DNA barcodes, BINs and species hypotheses (NTNU), and expertise/service marketplaces.
- All sources feed a central database, TaxoTrack, aligned with identifiers such as Wikidata, ROR and ORCID, to generate maps, taxonomic coverage evaluations, policy briefs and dashboards.
- The team does not expect researchers to change workflows; it wants machine-accessible sources so the analysis can be re-run every few weeks or months.
- A survey was launched targeting funding agencies and project registries, with an open section for other source ideas.
Notable moments
Transcript
Automatically generated captions can contain mistakes, especially in names and technical terms. Times are relative to the room recording.
Read the transcript ↓
Related talks.
Experience of collaborative management of the World Auchenorrhyncha Database in TaxonWorks
TaxonWorks turned a personal taxonomic database into a collaborative, well-connected resource feeding Catalogue of Life, GBIF and iNaturalist.
Biological occurrence data from historic scientific correspondence: enabling automated approaches for structured data extraction from body text
A Darwin Core-aligned annotated corpus from MfN journals provides a reference for evaluating automated occurrence extraction from historical texts.
Open Digital Curation and Round-Tripping Biodiversity Data Enhancements Across Collection Infrastructures: Six Years and 50 Million Links in Bionomia
Round-tripping is much harder than expected, and data managers must fully populate identifiedBy so taxonomists' expertise is credited.