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

[Richard Pyle]

Frank wrote:

> Yes, but (scientifically) insufficient descriptions are not the norm. 
> With "registration of the the minimum description required = availability" 
> sanctioned by the ICZN, this is the norm and publishing a proper paper 
> is sort of a luxury for the dwindling number of professional who need to 
> have a nice CV. Not all new species are described primarily because the 
> author want to produce a high quality scientific paper. There are other 
> incentives (commercial, personal pround, etc.), and not bothering with a 
> paper description and still having something produced that is officially 
> valid and has to be recognized by the community is a very attractive 
> quality of szenario 2 for those people. 

But my point is, those same people with the non-scientific incentives are perfectly free to self-publish as it is right now -- but they don't  With Registration, we have more control over the quality of the species -- not less.  And I think we also have more incentive to follow a registered name with a full description.  It would become obvious pretty quickly if certain taxonomists consistently failed to follow up registered names with good scientific descriptions.  With Registration, the whole world can see that.  With the current situation, scientists can quietly establish Code-compliant names that are otherwise "under the radar" -- such that they get the benefit of Code-dictated priority, without as much of the cost of exposure to the world.

My point is, if there were significant numbers of people willing to establish Code-compliant names without accompanying rigorous science, they can very easily do so right now.  For the most part, they don't; and I don't understand why they would be more willing to do so when the consequences of their laziness are even more visible and obvious to the outside world.

For example -- in your scenario 1, I'm assuming that the mandatory registration form would include all the elements minimally required to make a name available.  What would stop someone from registering a new name, printing 5 copies of a screen capture on a laser printer, calling it a self-publication, and mailing those 5 copies to various libraries and the ICZN.  That would constitute an available name under scenario 1, would it not? Why would you expect significantly more numbers of people to register a name without following it up with a published description, than would simply print out the registration form and call it a self-publication?  In both cases, the person gets an available name out of it.

> Producing a crap paper as a self-published pamphlet needs still the 
> recognition of the scientific community.
> Oh, yes, we DO neglect valid papers (even if we formally cannot, but 
> taxonomy is a science, not a formal procedure). This is the only 
> strategy we have against inappropriate papers until somebody has 
> the time to deal with them formally.

With registration, we have MORE strategies than this to identify bad names.

But all this aside, I'm still trying to understand why establishing a registered=available paradigm would somehow encourage more people to establish un-needed names without follow-up science in traditiponal publications, than the current system already allows. With all the instant access/scrutiny that would go with a registration system, there would be a significantly greater DIScouragement from creating bad names, compared to the present system.  And I don't see how decoupling registration from publication, and requiring both for availability, in any way decreases the probability of bad names (unless you simultaneously re-define what consitutues a "publication" -- which would probably raise more hackles among taxonomists than registration would).

> > 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?
> 
> Because they are officially validated by the ICZN without even 
> going to the photocopy machine. They get a higher status and recornition 
> instantly than they would ever get through a privately published pamphlet. 
> There is some psychological aspect in here we have to consider.

Oh, I'm counting on the psychology!!  You suggest that just establishing new names confers some sort of status and recognition.  I say that in the world where all names are registered, and all taxonomists have access to the system, and receive notifications of new names and such, there is MORE incentive to do better science.  Every discpline has its "stinkers" -- people who create bogus names with unscientific motivations.  Right now, those stinkers are not self-evident to the entire taxonomic community.  But with registration, the fate of each name could be integrated (via cross-links to subsequent treatments of the names by indexed publications), and a purely objective algorithm could very easily establish a "quality score" for each taxonomist, based on the extent to which their proposed names are subsequently treated as valid, or treated as invalid, or ignored.  With this "quality score" on display for the world to see, there would be a much stronger incentive NOT to create bogus names than there currently is.

With the right sort of registration, I think psychology could be used very heavily in favor of improving oveall quality.

Aloha,
Rich