[Zoobank-list] quality control, "the real challenge", etc.

[Doug Yanega]

I've been out of town for a few days, so there are many accumulated 
comments I'd like to respond to (better to do it in one large messae 
than 4 smaller ones). While I recognize that people are not generally 
inclined to look favorably on the "publication=registration, open 
peer review" model, and understand that, by virtue of its "extreme" 
nature, it's unlikely to win many supporters, I do - at the very 
least - wish to make sure that people understand *exactly* what the 
model means. Accordingly, when I see cases where I believe someone 
has misunderstood the model, I'll still offer a correction (because 
as long as people are going to criticize the proposal, I at least 
want them to keep their criticisms to those which are *correct*), 
even though I don't necessarily expect to win any converts. Using 
"straw man" arguments is unfair, and I believe several recent 
criticisms are just that: straw men.

To wit:

Martin Spies wrote:

>Do not mandate peer review as part of the registration process (see 
>items 3 and 4 below). Two reasons for the latter are that (1) this 
>would preclude progress in groups currently not 'blessed' with a 
>sufficient number of qualified researchers

I don't think this is a valid criticism. Every paper, regardless of 
taxon, can find qualified reviewers NOW, and this would be doubly 
true in my model, where the pool of reviewers is every taxonomist in 
the world. Under open peer review, you will never, ever, be unable to 
find people to review a paper. Even if there is only, say, one active 
Pycnogonid taxonomist in the world, there *will* be some other 
taxonomists that can at least evaluate whether they appear to have 
examined type specimens, examined the original literature, and so 
forth. There is no valid excuse for any taxonomic work to bypass some 
form of genuine peer review (and surely you aren't claiming that we 
have taxonomists who publish in non-peer-reviewed journals simply 
because they have no peers?). Apparently the model of peer review you 
object to is the PRESENT system of peer review: I am advocating going 
beyond and replacing that system, because it is unsuitable for our 
ultimate goals. If you wish to criticize mandatory peer review in the 
future, then, please address the *open* peer review model, rather 
than the status quo.

I'll note here that Chris Thompson's interjection into this is quite similar:

>As for Doug and his passion for "peer-review," Frank is right. But let
>me add a personal note. I serve on the editorial board of the
>Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which unfortunately
>became last year the first Scientific Society to publish a
>"peer-reviewed"  paper on Intelligent Design. Yes, Doug, by "peers" as
>in who are the peers of one who writes about Intelligent Design but
>other supporters!

That's exactly why we need to REPLACE the present "peer-review" 
system. It's not *open* - and if it's not open, it's a sham, and we 
cannot even *think* of making it mandatory! My "passion for peer 
review" is NOT to be construed as a passion for the status quo - 
never was, never will be, so *please* don't make that mistake (straw 
men again). To get back to Martin:

>(2) to incorporate mandatory peer review into the nomenclature realm 
>- when at present, whether we approve of this or not,  it isn't even 
>mandatory in any realm - would represent an unnecessary paradigm 
>shift that would significantly reduce the chances for wide 
>acceptance in the zoological community.

A minor quibble: it IS mandatory in other realms, most notably the 
PhyloCode. One of the additional benefits to adopting peer review is 
it minimizes that particular discrepancy between the two systems (a 
discrepancy which PhyloCode advocates proudly proclaim makes their 
system superior to the "archaic" system we still use). The sooner we 
sink the PhyloCode, the better off we'll all be - and the best way to 
eliminate an opposing system is to make our system better (so those 
who have jumped ship will jump *back*); open review *is* better than 
"clique review".

>Well, you'll be 'disappointed' to hear, then, that I'm not against 
>registration. However - and please excuse me if I repeat a concern 
>voiced on this list before - here's a worry related to me by an 
>'amateur' (i.e. not science-employed) and "non-digital" colleague 
>(term by Chris Thompson on the ICZN list, meaning a person not 
>habitually e-mailing and rarely visiting the web).
>
>In a scenario involving submission for registration of not only a 
>name, but also of the content of a new taxon description, that 
>colleague is afraid that others more involved and versed in 
>day-to-day science could then publish on the same taxon faster than 
>he could, thus securing the name and type material for themselves. 
>Apparently, this concern does not stem from paranoid imagination, 
>but from bad personal experience.
>
>As I see it, this danger would be highest if registration were a 
>requirement but names would continue to become available from the 
>date of (classical) publication rather than from that of effective 
>registry. However, may be a registration + peer review = 
>availability scenario could not completely remove such danger 
>either, if tricky individuals or factions were able to 'stall' or 
>prevent acceptance of the competitor's proposal in 
>registration-required peer review. The victim of such treatment 
>might have some chance to reciprocate on the opposite proposal, but 
>it would be best if the registration/availability process could 
>safeguard against any such activities in the first place, if only to 
>avoid burdening administrators and other well-meaning folks with 
>unproductive efforts not leading towards the goals of the registry.

This is one of the main reasons why I explicitly phrased my proposal 
to create a single, unified publication venue. No one can EVER have a 
taxon attribution stolen from them if the only place someone could 
validly publish is the same place the taxon was first proposed! It's 
the principle behind filing for a patent: the system only works 
because there's just ONE patent office. Priority is established 
*prior* to publication. Under the "publication=registration, open 
peer review" model, your colleague has nothing to fear. It has to 
work that way, in order for open review to be viable! Otherwise, 
every time a new taxon was proposed, there'd be a scramble to see who 
could get it published first (which is, in a way, not very different 
from the status quo). I think we, as scientists, should *despise* 
secrecy, because it stifles collaboration - by having a single venue, 
we would eliminate the need for secrecy, and encourage unprecedented 
levels of collaboration. If I found a single specimen of an 
indisputably new taxon, I could go online, announce to everyone in 
the world that I had found a new taxon, and solicit additional 
specimens to become paratypes - without any fear that anyone else 
could then pre-empt me. I *pray* that I will live to see that day.

Also, if your colleague *truly* can't afford an internet connection, 
then we ought to start a fund for taxonomists that buys them web 
time. I'm sure there are enough philanthropists out there, and so few 
taxonomists in that position, that solving that problem would be 
easy. That's the equivalent of complaining that it's wrong for 
journals to exclude hand-written manuscripts in pencil, because some 
scientists can't afford ink. If there are taxonomists who aren't on 
the web, then we should take that as a challenge to be solved, NOT as 
an excuse for refusing to advance our science.

>How many "well-recognized" but unnamed taxa are out there relative 
>to the multitude of truly new taxa being described.

I'm aware of well over 100 such among the insect taxa I'm familiar 
with. There are fewer species than that described every year in the 
taxa in question. Do you have any idea how many perfectly good taxa 
have been described in student theses, or in works that were in 
progress when a taxonomist died, but never made it into print? 
Wouldn't it be better if that never, ever, had to happen again?

>I'll work with any widely accepted set of nomenclature regulations, 
>as long as they make sense and facilitate rather than obstruct 
>practical taxonomic work.

In what way would the "publication=registration, open peer review" 
model obstruct practical taxonomic work? It is, after all, 
specifically intended to facilitate every step (and I literally mean 
EVERY step) of the taxonomic process. I'm serious: name a step, and 
I'll describe the improvement (do so privately, if you don't want to 
continue the exchange on the list).

>I still would be interested in a discussion of my proposal (possibly 
>also voiced by somebody before me?) of an additional registration 
>requirement for new names as soon as possible, plus a gradual 
>quality control process for registration of previously established 
>names. I sincerely believe that this scenario would best meet "the 
>real challenge", because it would require the community to adapt to 
>a relatively minimal change, and a change the advantages of which 
>should be the easiest to demonstrate.

Really, I have no problem supporting what you want, I just want to go 
farther than just that. Ultimately, Martin, our difference in opinion 
may be mostly because (as evidenced by your comments above) I didn't 
do a good enough job making clear what the more "extreme" model 
actually entailed. What difference there is *beyond* the practical 
matters - i.e., our feeling about the psychological and 
socio-political aspects - is probably the biggest actual difference 
between us. You say it's wishful thinking, or pipe dreams, and I say 
we need to actually assess how *other* people will feel about the 
various models, rather than *assume* that we know which will be 
favored or rejected, and why.

Next, Frank Krell asked:

>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)?

Again, this is a straw man - because it is not how open peer review 
would work. Look at it this way: WHO are the people who presently act 
as editors and reviewers for those 20,000 annual taxonomic acts? 
Aren't they taxonomists? Well, those SAME people will be editing and 
reviewing all the new submissions *regardless* of whether they're 
submitted to 2000 different taxonomic journals, or to one website 
with 2000 different discussion groups. I'm not talking about having 
2000 taxonomic journals PLUS a separate registration website - we 
simply stop publishing in the journals, and automatically bring 
everyone presently in that system over to the web system; the amount 
of actual human labor for those individuals who are presently part of 
the publication system would NOT increase, but rather go DOWN, 
because the total number of editors and reviewers would expand to 
include every single active taxonomist (as opposed to just those 
select few who are on editors' lists of reviewers); the burden of 
reviewing would be spread out over a vastly greater number, and make 
it easier for everyone. All those German, Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, 
and North Korean taxonomists will find that all the people who 
reviewed their papers before are right there, on the website, *with* 
them, as are hundreds of additional taxonomists who never before had 
a chance to review their papers, so they won't have to miss a beat. 
Also, there should be no more worry about what the single central 
location is for ZooBank than there is for GenBank. As for support, 
even in the *worst-case* scenario, just imagine if every unit of 
currency presently spent (i.e., wasted) by authors on journal 
publication were diverted to this one website. That alone would be a 
BIG operating budget, no? Also, where does GenBank get *its* money? 
Why wouldn't ZooBank become just as worthy of support, if it became 
the collective archive of every taxonomic work in the world (rather 
than just a registry of names)?

John Noyes added:

>In general I am in broad agreement with others about the 
>registration of names, although I am not sure that mandatory 
>registration will work because a good proportion of the taxonomic 
>community will not know about it. My guess is that at least 10% of 
>taxonomists out there do not even know of the existence of a code of 
>zoological nomenclature and certainly do not know of the existence 
>of the fourth edition.

In all sincerity, John, let me ask you this: if there are publishing 
taxonomists out there who don't even know about the Code, then which 
approach entails more drawbacks for the rest of us: (1) continuing to 
accept any and all such work, or (2) rejecting it until and unless it 
can pass formalized review criteria (including complete 
Code-compliance, not just the minimal requirement for publication)? I 
believe that our refusal to adopt strict standards of quality control 
makes us all suffer - and there are fewer drawbacks to rejecting 
inferior work than to accepting everything ever "validly published" 
regardless of its merit. Of direct concern are the additional burdens 
we suffer (trying to track down names, trying to sink synonyms, to 
replace homonyms, etc.), but we also indirectly suffer in that so 
many other scientists (and science funding agencies) feel little 
respect for taxonomy *specifically* because we have no strict 
standards, and have no unity. Having a registry of Approved Names 
linked inextricably to the publication process would offer the ideal 
way to draw the line between what we do and do not accept, *and* 
would give us a united front. In what way would taxonomy as a science 
be diminished by requiring that all taxonomic acts be approved by the 
taxonomic community *before* we acknowledge them as being part of the 
permanent scientific record? What is the downside of having higher 
standards? ["Alienating those who cannot meet them" is NOT a downside]

Rich Pyle and I aren't all that different in not wanting to tolerate 
(or *reward*) incompetence and fraud; the difference is that he 
apparently would be satisfied if registration alone - the simple 
existence of a public record - will cause the incompetents and frauds 
to suffer shame if/when their misdeeds are exposed (after the fact), 
and that these people will eventually go away as a result of this 
exposure. I, on the other hand, assume that most acts of incompetence 
and fraud are *intentional*, and nothing will deter that sort of 
person - other than refusing to accept their work in the first place. 
The former approach is more "friendly", but represents nothing more 
than a discouragement against bad science, and still requires that 
good taxonomists publish specifically to expose bad taxonomy (as is 
true under the status quo); the latter is more "hostile", but it 
would mean actual *prevention* of bad science, and eliminate the 
"publish/counter-publish" cycle. I ask myself this: who, exactly, 
would be harmed if we opted for "hostile"? The only answer I can see: 
those who are incompetent, or frauds. The taxonomic community *does* 
contain parasites - so why would we resist the chance to be rid of 
them forever, immediately?

At any rate, every one of these exchanges lets me see a little more 
of what (and how) people think - I'm starting to think that we might 
benefit from a large table comparing how different models work - 
fleshing out some of the details. Hmmm.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20051009/3b2c0282/attachment-0001.html