[Zoobank-list] Registration and quality control; approved journals

[Frank Krell]

Risking to repeat myself - repetition will be unavoidable and necessary in this discussion - I feel a strong need to comment on Rich's assessment, and I would come back to the idea of approved journals which might solve lots of problems for the time being:

	Rich wrote: Scenario 1 adds to this step the need for the author to upload a facsimile
	file or submit a reprint to ICZN.  It also puts additiona; burden on ICZN
	staff to ensure that the submitted publication fulfills other articles of
	the Code, before "releasing" the new name to available status.
	
	 
	This is one of the great advantages of the ZooBank proposal, to create a central paper and electronic archive of all original descriptions, and ideally (disregarding copyright problems for the moment) present all original descriptions as electronic copy free of charge on one website. It also avoids names of dubious nature floating around (e.g. locality of the collection missing in which the type is deposited; or any other 'minor' requirement overlooked, but published anyway) without a central register to consult. Yes, there will be formal quality control of nomenclatural requirements by the ICZN, and this I see as one of the big advantages of the system, one of the great services ZooBank and the ICZN would offer to the community. We do not only want to demand something from taxonomists, we want to offer something (helping with Code requirements and offering a list of available names [and published descriptions]).
	 
	Rich wrote: In Scenario 2, there are no additional steps for either the author or the
	ICZN to complete (over and above the mandatory registration step). Authors
	will continue to publish new species descriptions the way they always
	have -- the only differences being 1) the mandatory registration process
	[again, common to all 3 sceanrios], and 2) the fact that their name becomes
	available ("locked-in") the moment it is registered; not the date on which a
	paper-printed description is published in accordance with ICZN rules
	governing publication of new names.
	
	Then we are back in the nineteenth century where people published or distributed species lists of their collections, and the community treated new names in them as available (Dejean, Megerle's auction catalogues, etc.). Or we are back in Linnean times when three-liners were sufficient to describe species. "Ater. Small black beetle, roundish, slightly more convex then niger, Hab. India" - registered, available (saleable...).
	 
	If we go for registration=available (szenario 2) without the need for a proper (ideally peer-reviewed) publication, we will risk getting many more inappropriately described species than we have already. Currently, we can just neglect useless papers if we don't have the months available to sort out the obvious mess (sort of peer reject after publication - it happens), if all this crap is registered without quality control, we HAVE to deal with it. If we introduce quality control in the description process (if we decide to need a formal description for registration=availability) then the ICZN interfers with science which is beyond its scope and capabilities. 
	 
	Doug's szenario (3) is too radical to get accepted in the forseeable future, BUT I like the idea of approved journals, closely cooperating with ZooBank. I wouldn't have a problem to establish a sort of automatic registration system as part of the submission procedure of the accepted manuscript with 'Systematic Entomology' which Pete Cranston and I edit. Zootaxa would be another suitable, much for important journal for new names to get approved status. Any journal could apply for approval with the ICZN and establish the procedure (which is similar to the requirement of molecular journals to send things to GenBank). We do not need and nobody can afford to take over from the journals the proper publication of 20,000 names per year. Moreover, people like the choice, where to send their papers. If ZooTaxa or the Zoologische Verhandelingen evolve as the journal where 90% of all zoologists WANT to publish their papers, then we are nearer to Doug's szenario, but we should not try to force taxonomists out of their beloved established journal system into a central place where they HAVE to publish. Are you sure, Doug, that all German, Russian, Chinese, Iraqi and North Korean authors want to publish their new names in one place in London (or Washington, or Tel Aviv; wherever the donor needed for this immense project wants to have it)?
	 
	The advantage of Szenario 1 is that it can be established very soon without much additional funding, if we cooperate closely with Zoological Record. So the voluntary trial phase could start next year, and we can move on from there if the taxonomic community feels the need to.
	 
	Cheers
	 
	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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 8090 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20051006/2f4f247c/attachment.bin