Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history.
- DOI
- 10.1111/brv.12526
- Published
- 2019 Oct
- Container
- Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 45/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1111/brv.12526,
title = {Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history.},
author = {Tucker CM and Aze T and Cadotte MW and Cantalapiedra JL and Chisholm C and Díaz S and Grenyer R and Huang D and Mazel F and Pearse WD and Pennell MW and Winter M and Mooers AO},
year = {2019},
journal = {Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society},
doi = {10.1111/brv.12526},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12526}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history. AU - Tucker CM AU - Aze T AU - Cadotte MW AU - Cantalapiedra JL AU - Chisholm C AU - Díaz S AU - Grenyer R AU - Huang D AU - Mazel F AU - Pearse WD AU - Pennell MW AU - Winter M AU - Mooers AO PY - 2019 JO - Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society DO - 10.1111/brv.12526 UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12526 ER -
APA
CM, T., T, A., MW, C., JL, C., C, C., S, D., R, G., D, H., F, M., WD, P., MW, P., M, W., & AO, M. (2019). Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history.. Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12526
Source records
- pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-24T20:43:15.361Z