[Zoobank-list] registration=publication

[Frank Krell]

Dear All,

we had some internal discussion about the registration=publication proposal when we prepared the Nature paper and the technical paper on the ICZN's webpage. The following statement is from one of my mails of that time:

"I am very sceptical about the registration=publication idea for the following reasons:
1. It would mean that the ICZN deals with the science itself, not only with nomenclature. We would then have the same muddle as in the PhyloCode.
2. Descriptions are scientific interpretations requiring some quality control. If ZooBank will be transformed into the unitary publication organ for zoological names, we can either sanction non-peer reviewed science (as the standard adopted by the ICZN) or introduce a peer review system for 20000 zoological names per year which then requires good editors assessing the referees' reports. This is way beyond the capabilities of ZooBank, the ICZN or Thompson or Google or all together. Moreover, refereeing original descriptions is somewhat boring and I doubt that it will be easy to get enough referees willing to do this job [and editors, because the editorial work, if not paid, is not generally rewarded by employers - and editing purely descriptive work lacks any intellectual challenge either; I would dare to predict that it is rather difficult to find GOOD editors, or in Doug's szenario, 20,000 'impartial referees' per year dealing with the peer review process]. In our Nature paper we explicitely rejected any form of peer review to avoid the impression to introduce scientific censorship, and no peer review system is required for publication sensu Rich. There are already enough dissatisfying descriptions published, and we can't avoid them, but it won't be an advantage if we remove any requirement for peer review from descriptive taxonomy at all.
3. Scientists are still assessed by their list of publications, and I see no signs that this will change very soon. If we strip taxonomists of their descriptive papers because everything has to be published in ZooBank, they will get even worse assessments. If only an insufficient diagnosis is published in ZooBank requiring a extensive description elsewhere, those papers will be less attractive for publishers if these descriptions do not describe 'new taxa', because they have already been published elsewhere (in ZooBank).
I have the impression that the registration=publication idea bases on the impression that original descriptions are formal, objective, correct texts which can be treated in a formal way. This is not the case. Descriptions can be and often are insufficient, wrong, full of misinterpretation, too long (describing individuals rather than taxa), commercially intended, badly researched, etc., etc. We should not allow all taxonomy to avoid peer review by publishing new taxa with ICZN. At the same time, ICZN cannot (and should not!) provide peer review and editing for 20000 zoological names per year. ICZN rules nomenclature, not science."

Non-journal-based taxonomy is yet to be the common working practice and not rewarded in CVs, and people still like to put sp.n. behind their new species in the proper paper. I think, there is a good chance that registration=publication will reduce the acceptance of mandatory registration and will eventually kill our initiative. Let's start with registration, let's get this accepted by the taxonomic community (probably difficult enough), and then have an open mind (particularly in writing the next edition of the code) to allow web-taxonomy to progress within the framework of the Code.

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
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/staffpages/fkrell.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Mesibov [mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au]
> Sent: 24 September 2005 11:22
> To: Zoobank
> Subject: [Zoobank-list] Doug Yanega's proposal
> 
> 
> I suspect that mandatory registration will be supported by 
> many taxonomists, 
> but 'registration = publication' won't. For this reason I 
> expect to see the 
> first in place in a few years, while 'registration = 
> publication' will be 
> delayed, and may never happen.
> 
> However, there are no obstacles whatsoever to setting up a Web-based 
> taxonomic journal (with print copies to comply with the Code) 
> of the kind 
> Doug Yanega has outlined. If one was set up now, i.e. late 
> 2005 or early 
> 2006, it will have had its trial run by the time registration 
> arrives. If 
> the scheme works, it could then be integrated with ICZN registration.
> 
> Perhaps 'Yanegiana' could be started as a subproject of  one of the 
> better-funded biodiversity cataloguing efforts. It would need 
> a fair amount 
> of seed funding (for hardware) if it attracted a lot of 
> taxonomic business, 
> which it no doubt would, if the spectacular success of 
> Zootaxa is anything 
> to go by.
> ---
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
> and School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> (03) 6437 1195
> 
> Tasmanian Multipedes
> http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/zoology/multipedes/mulintro.html
> Spatial data basics for Tasmania
> http://www.geog.utas.edu.au/censis/locations/index.html
> --- 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zoobank-list mailing list
> Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list
>