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

[Richard Pyle]

> 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. 

I absolutely agree that having facsimilies of all print-published descriptions available online and easily accessed via ZooBank is a huge advantage.  But that wasn't the issue I was responding to in the excerpt of mine you quoted.  I was addressing the question of what is the "simplest" approach.

> 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...).

Technically, we are still in those times right now.  There is nothing in the Code that prevents me from writing a three-line description, and self-publishing it in full accordance with the code.  The reason I don't, and the reason that other taxonomists don't (in significant numbers), is that their scientific reputations are at stake.  As they still would be in Scenario 2. But with registration, the track record of every taxonomist is right there for the world to see, so the incentive to do quality work is even higher.

> 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. 

Why do you belive this?  What is stopping people from inappropriately describing species names right now?  It's really easy to do, and remain within the current Code. Why does having a a system that allows the whole world to see all of the inappropriate names a person registers offer *more* incentive to create such inappropriate names?

> 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), 

You CANNOT just ignore "useless" papers if those papers conform to existing Code rules.

> if all this crap is registered without quality control, we HAVE to deal with it. 

You already HAVE to deal with all the "crap" that is currently published in accordance with the Code.  My question to you is, what basis is there for assuming that the rate of crap-generation would increase with registration, compared to the current situation?  Especially when with registration, the whole world can see who is producing crap, and who is not.

> 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.

That is why I am not comfortable with Scenario 3.

Right now, new species are described in traditional paper-based publications.  Typically, 90%+ of the content of those descriptions is not relevant to ICZN rules regarding availability of names.  The <10% that is relevant to ICZN availability of names is *exactly* the same information that would be included in a ZooBank registration entry.  The point is, ONLY that <10% is necessary in order for a name to be made available in accordance with ICZN rules.  The other 90% content of modern scientific descriptions is EXTRA stuff, added by the author(s), to share scientific information with colleagues -- stuff that has NOTHING to do with the "legal" availability of a proposed new name.  This is my point about disentangling the "science" of taxonomy, from the legal availability on new names.

The ICZN Code is designed to objectively establish availability and priority of names.  It is NOT (and should not be, in my opinion) in the business of meddling with the taxonomic validity of those names.  I think it would be WONDERFUL to include an online journal of the sort that Doug describes as an integral component of ZooBank.  But I think it should NOT be entangled with the core process of establishing the availability (=registration) of names.

> 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. 

I agree completely -- and I think the this should continue as it has.  And it would, in Scenario 2. It's just that the availability of new names would depend only on them being properly registered -- not also on them being secondarily published in paper-based form outside of the registration process.  It's a nomenclatural technicality that I suspect the majority of taxonomists would be indifferent to.  The real challenge will be to get the basic "mandatory registration" step accepted and adopted by the broader taxonomic community in the first place -- a challenge that all 3 scenarios face equally. As was pointed out earlier today on this list by John Noyes and Johan Liljeblad, the problem isn't active resistance to registration, but rather passive indifference.

> 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 c
> ould start next year, and we can move on from there if the 
> taxonomic community feels the need to.

Note that this advantage applies exactly equally to Scenario 2 as well.

Aloha,
Rich