[Zoobank-list] Open peer review

[Pape, Thomas]

Frank raises the problem of manpower relating to the peer review process (how are Doug's "impartial reviewers" recruited?). While the discussion so far has mainly focused on too MANY comments, how to deal with conflicting reviews, when to stop, etc., I certainly think the possibility of getting no comments at all to be more serious.

We need peer review in nomenclature as much as we need it throughout our science. Peer review is currently outside the ICZN remit and cannot be assimilated without a major change in attitude. We may need this change, but registration does not HAVE to be tied to peer review initially, and I agree with an earlier posting by Chris that we should start with registration and work up the procedures. As already suggested by Andy, the "Registration = Publication" could easily run in parallel to "Registration by submission", with one or a few select journals authorized by the ICZN.

Thomas Pape
The Natural History Museum of Denmark



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fra: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] På vegne af Frank Krell
Sendt: 6. oktober 2005 09:20
Til: Zoological Nomenclature Discussion Group
Emne: RE: "approved list" (RE: [iczn-list] Publication in newspapers)


Doug,

I seriously doubt that we have the manpower to do your "publication =
registration, with open peer review" model in a way that guarantees the outcome you predict. For many groups we have no or only a few experts. If you are the only expert, your non-existent peer-group won't be of any help, and the only reviews might come from non-experts. What about taxa for which we have only a few bad taxonomists in the world. This small group of people might fix an unqualified list of names forever. We have not enough experts to moderate the peer-review process (because this would be, for the time being, an additional peer review system to the existing one with journals - and as an editor, I don't get the impression that scientists can't wait for additional refereeing opportunities; look at the number of comments to current ICZN cases - many don't attract any comment; this is a working model for your open peer review process). There will be (as in this list) very few people enthusiastic about the idea and joining the club, and they decide about what is available in future. I am not sure that this will be appealing. The world is not that ideal, as far as I experience it.

By the way, shouldn't we have this discussion on the right list? I think when we develop the registration system, we will go mainly through the ZooBank list (http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list). If registration is discussed elsewhere, we will try to get all this together, but cannot guarantee that we consider it. That was the very reason for establishing the zoobank-list.

Frank
Dr Frank-T. Krell
Head, Coleoptera Division
Head, Scarab Research Group
Editor, Systematic Entomology
Department of Entomology
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7942 5886
Fax +44 (0) 20 7942 5229
f.krell at nhm.ac.uk