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

[Spies, Martin]

> I had written:
>
>> Do not mandate peer review as part of the registration process ... 
>> this would preclude progress in groups currently not 'blessed' with a 
>> sufficient number of qualified researchers
>
Doug Yanega replied:

> 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.

If you read the 'scenario' I've outlined twice on this list, you'll see 
that, of course, I do not object to peer review per se in any system. 
What I think would be counterproductive is to mandate that a definite 
number of review statements have to be received (and themselves 
evaluated for appropriateness!) by ZooBank before a name is accepted as 
available. What Doug is depicting in glowing colours, a situation in 
which ALL new nomenclatural proposals would be reviewed by the required 
number (2? 5? or just 1?) of qualified peers voluntarily and within a 
reasonable time span, is a dream world. Yes, opening peer review to 
everybody with internet access may increase the chances for finding 
reviewers. That's why I'm for an open-review period prior to 
availability. Nevertheless, you will still have lots of cases in which 
you won't get the necessary qualified reviews without (ZooBank 
personnel) having to put in extra effort, because (1) there are not 
enough experts around for all groups in zoology, (2) the existing 
experts aren't exactly lining up waiting to do extra work they get no 
compensation or worthwhile recognition for, and (3) those relatively few 
experts who do volunteer such work often don't know or care enough about 
the details of nomenclature. We probably all wish the circumstances were 
different, but wishful thinking is not going to help us design an 
efficient ZooBank AND get it accepted by the zoological community.

The above assessment of mine is based on rather rich experience in 
various roles of scientific publishing - as reader, author, reviewer or 
editor - and I'm convinced it is realistic enough to assess mandatory, 
fixed-return peer review in ZooBank as counterproductive. Instead, I 
propose to allow truly open online peer review of registry data to 
contribute to the achievement of successive quality control levels, but 
to NOT have that review mandatory in the sense that X ZooBank-certified 
reviews have to be in by date Y before availability and whatever other 
status is awarded.

The main advantages of my proposal are the following:
(1) It requires the least amount of effort by all involved - need I 
stress that this is VERY significant in times of the taxonomist 
community and its material support base thinning almost as fast as the 
ozone layer?
(2) It requires zoologists at large to adapt to the relatively smallest 
change from the current system, giving us the relatively largest chance 
for widespread acceptance of mandatory registration - "the real 
challenge", as I hope all of us agree.

Since in my 'scenario' the publication realm and its peer-review system 
would be largely unaffected by the addition of ZooBank registration, 
truly open registry review would bring a significant net gain of quality 
control without obstructing progress toward our overall goals by 
erecting unnecessary additional formal hurdles.

-- 
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20051010/537d7d48/attachment.html