Hit or miss? Creative promotion of biodiversity data and standards for success and recognition

What this was about

Shelley James and Deb Paul led an interactive session asking what counts as a publication, whether institutions credit software and datasets, and which audiences the community fails to reach. Audience members described getting credit via Zenodo DOIs and funder CV sections, the long-term impact of taxonomy not captured by short-term metrics, the gap between formal evaluation boxes and informal profiles, and the need to reach the private sector. The presenters promoted the diamond open access journal they edit and BISS at Pensoft, the new ORPHO authoring tool, cheap engaging swag, digitising hidden collections, publishing protocols and creative outputs (art auctions, animated talk illustrations) on Zenodo with DOIs, and registering names in nomenclatural registries.

Why it matters. Recognition of datasets, software, protocols and outreach shapes careers and funding in biodiversity informatics, and the discussion surfaced both practical tactics and structural barriers in evaluation systems.

In the room

• Publications can include software, tutorials, datasets, blog posts, grey literature and even collection tours.
• Institutions often recognise only formal peer-reviewed outputs, unlike individuals' broader view.
• Audience: dataset and software DOIs (e.g. via Zenodo) and funder forms such as Horizon Europe or NSF 'other outputs' sections are routes to credit.
• Taxonomic publications may have impact over a century, unlike fast-cycle fields, which short-term metrics miss.
• Formal evaluations (tenure, docentship, Academy of Finland) have fixed boxes; 'digital recognition' matters only if that 'market' accepts it.
• Deb Paul warned that early-career researchers in the US have faced negative reactions from colleagues for using AI-generated images.
• CETAF's strategy emphasises engaging the private sector, a heavy but under-recognised user of GBIF data (e.g. banking).

Notable moments