The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding
Abstract
Despite the broad benefits that DNA barcoding can bring to a diverse range of biological disciplines, a number of shortcomings still exist in terms of the experimental design of studies incorporating this approach. One underlying reason for this lies in the confusion that often exists between species discovery and specimen identification, and this is reflected in the way that hypotheses are generated and tested. Although these aims can be associated, they are quite distinct and require different methodological approaches, but their conflation has led to the frequently inappropriate use of commonly used analytical methods such as neighbour‐joining trees, bootstrap resampling and fixed distance thresholds. Furthermore, the misidentification of voucher specimens can also have serious implications for end users of reference libraries such as the Barcode of Life Data Systems, and in this regard we advocate increased diligence in the a priori identification of specimens to be used for this purpose. This commentary provides an assessment of seven deficiencies that we identify as common in the DNA barcoding literature, and outline some potential improvements for its adaptation and adoption towards more reliable and accurate outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes
Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2218 · Cited by 13,376
bold : The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org)
RATNASINGHAM, S., & HEBERT, P. D. N. (2007) · Molecular Ecology Notes · doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x · Cited by 6,376
ABGD, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery for primary species delimitation
PUILLANDRE, N., LAMBERT, A., BROUILLET, S., & ACHAZ, G. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05239.x · Cited by 3,324
Funk, D. J., & Omland, K. E. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132421 · Cited by 2,237
DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling
Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 · Cited by 1,957
The integrative future of taxonomy
Padial, J. M., Miralles, A., De la Riva, I., & Vences, M. (2010) · Frontiers in Zoology · doi:10.1186/1742-9994-7-16 · Cited by 1,915
BOLD : The Barcode of Life Data System (www.barcodinglife.org)
Ratnasingham, S., & Ebert, P. D. N. H. (2007) · Cited by 1,676
Meier, R., Shiyang, K., Vaidya, G., & Ng, P. K. L. (2006) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150600969864 · Cited by 1,401
Valentini, A., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.09.011 · Cited by 1,122
Cited by
Irinyi, L., Serena, C., Garcia-Hermoso, D., Arabatzis, M., Desnos-Ollivier, M., Vu, D., Cardinali, G., Arthur, I., Normand, A.-C., Giraldo, A., et al. (2015) · Medical Mycology · doi:10.1093/mmy/myv008 · Cited by 329
Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies
Zimmermann, J., Glöckner, G., Jahn, R., Enke, N., & Gemeinholzer, B. (2015) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12336 · Cited by 317
Biological invasions, climate change and genomics
Chown, S. L., Hodgins, K. A., Griffin, P. C., Oakeshott, J. G., Byrne, M., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2015) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/eva.12234 · Cited by 284
Guidelines for DNA taxonomy, with a focus on the meiofauna
Fontaneto, D., Flot, J.-F., & Tang, C. Q. (2015) · Marine Biodiversity · doi:10.1007/s12526-015-0319-7 · Cited by 276
Piredda, R., Tomasino, M. P., D'Erchia, A. M., Manzari, C., Pesole, G., Montresor, M., Kooistra, W. H. C. F., Sarno, D., & Zingone, A. (2017) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1093/femsec/fiw200 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, R. A., & Cruickshank, R. H.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-12-27
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 969-975
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W2133868441
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 23.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1755-0998.12046
- The paper
- Collins, R. A., & Cruickshank, R. H. (2013). The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12046
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
