[Zoobank-list] original descriptions

[Carlos Eduardo Sarmiento Monroy]

I think Doug Yanega has made a good point with the "open access" review. Even though my personal concern are the "looong" lasting discussions, which may slow down the description process, I certaintly agree that a non-restricted and open to public review may reduce the number of "evaluations" that some people do driven by their personal feelings rather than by the scientific quality of the paper.

I also like to point out Michael Schmitt´s comment on the durability of our work. To my knowledge none of the current technologies has been able to last longer than good ink and good paper. We may include in the final step of a new name publication a series of physical depositories for printed versions. Given the human history of wars and politics this list of depostories should be as geographically widespread as possible.

Carlos E. Sarmiento M.
Profesor Asistente
Instituto de Ciencias Naturales
Universidad Nacional de Colombia

----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:19 pm
Subject: RE: [Zoobank-list] original descriptions

> Frank Krell wrote:
> 
> >However, let's say there were three ant taxonomists left in the 
> >world, and they don't like each other (very hypothetical), where 
> >would new ant species be published? Do you think, rejects are 
> always 
> >objective or based on quality?
> 
> Not under the status quo, where only a few reviewers are selected, 
> according to an editor's bias, and their reviews are submitted 
> anonymously - allowing them to be as subjective as they wish, with 
> no 
> repercussions. That's exactly one of the main reasons we *have* so 
> many problems with taxonomy. It's too easy to cater to any 
> particular 
> bias one might have, including the ultimate act of bias, 
> self-publication (a practice that is still alive and well).
> 
> Under the system I propose, anyone who *cares* to review a paper 
> on 
> ant taxonomy would be welcome to do so - and one does not 
> necessarily 
> have to be an expert on a taxon to be able to distinguish shoddy 
> research from quality research. Moreover, if those three 
> hypothetical 
> argumentative experts had to air out their debate in public, do 
> you 
> honestly think it would take people very long to distinguish which 
> of 
> the three made the best arguments? I have confidence in the 
> collective wisdom of the taxonomic community - that we can spot 
> frauds and charlatans, and send them packing, rather than having 
> to 
> continue to tolerate bad science simply because there are too many 
> vanity journals to police them all.
> 
> Rich Pyle similarly wrote:
> 
> >This is one of the reasons I'm uneasy about enforcing peer-
> reviewed 
> >full-fledged descriptions (in *any* form -- paper, electronic, or 
> >otherwise) as a mandatory component of nomenclatural availability.
> 
> Again, I'm not talking about *traditional* peer review. I'm taking 
> about allowing every single person who reads a paper, and cares 
> about 
> what's in it, to actually have the chance to review it - and make 
> their praise or condemnations part of the public record. How can 
> that 
> NOT yield far, far better results than the present system? How can 
> such a system fail to expose people with purely *subjective* 
> criticisms? Greater objectivity would be an inevitable by-product, 
> and with better "quality control", the work of us few remaining 
> taxonomists would get easier and easier.
> 
> >In my view, all that should be required to establish an available 
> >scientific name in Zoology are:
> 
> In an ideal world, I would happily agree that those four criteria 
> would be plenty. But there *are* "cheaters" who exploit the 
> system, 
> and make life a misery for the rest of the taxonomic community. I 
> can 
> think of several, and though they are admittedly not many (at 
> present 
> - and one of the worst modern offenders just passed away 
> recently), 
> we could be rid of them entirely if we honestly wanted to be. That 
> ignores the "name auctions becoming a cottage industry" line of 
> thought, which you and I have discussed before, and - admittedly - 
> is 
> something I worry about, myself, but appears unlikely to worry 
> anyone 
> else until it actually happens (and, by definition, would then be 
> too 
> late to stop). Maybe it's something only a person with an 
> extensive 
> background in (1) taxonomy (2) anti-spamming, and (3) eBay could 
> conceive of, but where the Web is concerned, if people get even a 
> *whiff* of a way to make money, the word will get out, spread 
> exponentially, and cause havoc. That's certainly what the brief 
> history of the Internet has demonstrated. I'm just suggesting that 
> we 
> act in a proactive fashion to counteract the *worst* aspects of 
> the 
> Web - and make the *best* aspects of the Web work *for* us, to as 
> great an extent as possible.
> 
> Sincerely,
> -- 
> 
> Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research 
> MuseumUniv. 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
> _______________________________________________
> Zoobank-list mailing list
> Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list
>