[Zoobank-list] Re: Yanega Scenario

Tue Sep 27 15:27:15 BST 2005

Dear list members,

First, I'd like to say I come from the perspective of a graduate student and
would like to see more input from graduate students in this discussion as it
directly affects our actions in the taxonomic field for a much longer time.
Perhaps it is my youth and naiveté, but I feel that a centralized peer-reviewed
publication for taxonomic works will greatly increase their value. Even better
is to make the works freely accessible over the internet if financially
possible. 

In the United States, taxonomy as a science is undervalued by funding agencies
and administrators. Perhaps one of several reasons for this could be the lack
of ease by which laymen can find relevant papers. Additionally, obscure or
small-distribution journals, foreign journals and globally scattered monographs
printed in few quantities hampers the abilities of amateur taxonomists
worldwide and professional taxonomists in countries that lack the resources and
grand libraries of the US and Europe. 

Making publications more accessible will increase their visibility, increase
their citation and increase their value to scientists working outside of
systematics. By making it accessible online, whether freely or for a small fee
to offset maintenance costs, the accuracy of researchers working in other
fields will be significantly enhanced (such as ecology, conservation science
and biomedical fields). There should be less of "Species 1, Species 2, etc."
and more reporting of species names, or at least to the lowest taxonomic level
available. More importantly, ecological data can greatly contribute to
taxonomic research if the species are known. Likewise, good taxonomic keys and
descriptions are essential to ecologists.

There will definitely need to be a universal language and it should be English
as it is considered the language of business, for better or worse. But wouldn’t
it appropriate to create a language portal to increase accessibility? The
language of publication could still be English, but these portals should be
developed to make it easier for others navigate ZooBank and perhaps translate
abstracts.

In response to Dr. Pyle’s comment that publications decoupled from ZooBank would
not fulfill the Code’s requirements, would it be possible to form partnerships
with journals, museums and natural history societies that would make their
taxonomic work available on ZooBank’s website in some form. There could be a
stipulation, if need be, such as posting to the website after 3 or 6 months
etc. of publication. Additionally, ZooBank’s role might be just as well served
as a repository of abstracts and easily searchable keywords that would make it
easier for anyone to find the citations they need. This would complement
Scenario 1 and highlight journals given the shoulder by web of science type
search engines that seem to highlight major journals with citation indexes. 

Regards, Kevin Zelnio 

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:00:03 +0100, zoobank-list-request at afriherp.org wrote:

> Send Zoobank-list mailing list submissions to
> 	zoobank-list at afriherp.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	zoobank-list-request at afriherp.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	zoobank-list-owner at afriherp.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Zoobank-list digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Yanega scenario (GOEMANS, Geert)
>    2. RE: Yanega scenario (Richard Pyle)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:12:51 +0200
> From: "GOEMANS, Geert" <Geert.GOEMANS at inbo.be>
> Subject: [Zoobank-list] Yanega scenario
> To: <zoobank-list at afriherp.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<2E9C414912813E4EB981326983E0A104EF08EB at inexch.instnat.be.grp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> I just heard about the discussion on the zoobank idea. I read parts of
> the discussion and want to say I am very 'pro' the 'yanegian' idea, one
> of the big advantages would be, (To quote Doug Yanega) "personal grudges
> or biases of the reviewers are exposed to scrutiny - in essence, one
> insincere review for or against a manuscript is no longer going to
> potentially get a bad paper approved, or a good one rejected. Amateurs
> who submit well-done research will not have their work rejected because
> of a single elitist reviewer, nor will entrenched taxonomists who submit
> poor research be given a free ride based solely on their reputation;
> work will be much more readily recognized as good or bad on its own
> merits when politics is taken out of the equation."
> 
> This Yanega scenario will most certainly speed up publication
> (personally I have at the moment a publication that is already almost
> two years on it's way! And this mainly because of slowing down at editor
> and printers level), and will most probably avoid that new additions
> will make even a bigger mess of some taxonomical groups because one can
> (almost) reach the whole taxonomic community and get positive as well as
> negative feedback and information about possible paratypes, etc. (as
> Doug already pointed out).
> 
> But what will happen to the sometimes incredibly well illustrated
> catalogues that are published but that are not peer reviewed but do
> fulfil the requirements of the ICZN code. Will they still get accepted
> or would they also have to go through the system? Because I think these
> works could also get a whole lot better with just a simple on-line
> review. 
> 
> Another problem Doug touched was the 'universal language' I am not
> convinced that this will be as easy as thought, ok for the New World
> (maybe with the exception of Brazil) and for most of Europe. But what
> with China or Russia, just to name some? I am not convinced it will be
> so easy for them to just write in English. Could it be an option to have
> translations in several languages? 
> 
>  
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
>  
> 
> Geert Goemans  
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20050926/8d48a294/attachment-0001.html
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:36:28 -1000
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Subject: RE: [Zoobank-list] Yanega scenario
> To: "Zoobank Discussion List \(ICZN\)" <zoobank-list at afriherp.org>
> Message-ID: <IMEKKFHEGHHDDDHKIOJEIEEHDFAA.deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 
> Geert Goemans wrote:
> 
> > But what will happen to the sometimes incredibly well illustrated
> > catalogues that are published but that are not peer reviewed but
> > do fulfil the requirements of the ICZN code. Will they still get
> > accepted or would they also have to go through the system?
> 
> "Scenario 1" (Mandatory registration only), as I outlined previously, would
> allow such names to be secondarily registered and made available -- provided
> that the published description fulfills all of the minimum requirements in
> the ICZN Code.
> 
> However, new names included in such publications that are decoupled from
> ZooBank would not fulfill availability requirements of the new Code, if
> either Scenario 2 or 3 (Registration fulfills Publication/Yanega Scenario)
> are embraced.  The point of these latter two scenarios is that Registration
> and nomenclatural availability are synchronized within the same event.
> 
> The main difference between Scenarios 2 & 3 is that the former disentangles
> nomenclatural availability from the science of taxonomy, whereas the latter
> more tightly coordinates nomenclatural availability and science.
> 
> Note that none of these three scenarios is mutually exclusive in terms of
> features available through ZooBank.  For example, neither Scenarios 1 nor 2
> precludes the establishment of an online/open-peer-review electronic journal
> as described by Doug, as an integral component of ZooBank.  The only
> difference between the scenarios is in terms of what constitutes the minimum
> criteria for the availability of a new name -- that is, how the next
> version/edition of the ICZN Code will be drafted.
> 
> As I have already stated, I believe the best solution is to disentangle the
> process of establishing ICZN-recognized nomenclatural acts from the science
> of taxonomy -- as is currently the case in terms of Code requirements (but
> not in terms of actual practice by taxonomists).
> 
> Carlos Sarmiento wrote earlier:
> 
> > There is a risk in leaving registration just to the
> > "web process", names may proliferate "without control". Even
> > though we have seen hard copy publications with obvious taxonomic
> > and nomenclatorial mistakes, the peer review process is important
> > to keep standards high.
> 
> I certainly agree with the need to keep taxonomic standards high, and I also
> understand the risk of name proliferation.  However, I believe it would not
> be difficult to establish protocols within ZooBank to mitigate both of these
> concerns -- even if nomenclatural registration/availability were decoupled
> from the peer-reviewed science of taxonomy.
> 
> As is currently the situation with the 4th Edition of the ICZN Code, I am
> perfectly at liberty to draft a 1-paragraph description of a new taxon on my
> laptop computer, fulfill all the basic requirements of the current Code
> (e.g., properly designating a type, etc.), print multiple copies on "durable
> media" with my laser printer (or print one copy and make multiple
> photocopies), and mail these multiple copies simultaneously to various
> libraries/researchers, etc. -- and thus create a new available name in
> accordance with ICZN rules.
> 
> The reason that this is not already a widespread problem within taxonomy is
> that taxonomists care about their scientific reputations.  I don't believe
> this fundamental premise will change with the introduction of ZooBank.
> Indeed, I believe there are numerous easy methods to foster good science
> alongside registration of new names, simply by how the data on ZooBank are
> presented.  I don't have time to describe these ideas now, but suffice it to
> say there are many, many options available to us, harnessing the power of a
> robust database system that would serve as the core of ZooBank.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zoobank-list mailing list
> Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list
> 
> 
> End of Zoobank-list Digest, Vol 1, Issue 5
> ******************************************
> 
> 

|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
Kevin A. Zelnio
Pennsylvania State University
Department of Biology
208 Mueller Lab
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 814-863-8360
Fax: 814-865-9131
email: kaz146 at psu.edu
http://www.freewebs.com/kevin_zelnio/index.htm
http://www.bio.psu.edu/people/faculty/fisher/
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|