[Zoobank-list] Re: [iczn-list] quality control in taxonomy?

[Spies, Martin]

I agree with Doug that the ICZN isn't likely to go where Alex would like 
it to (they should be busy enough trying to eliminate what subjectivity 
and clutter still linger in the Code as is ;-) ).

I also agree with Doug that a mere peer-review requirement wouldn't help 
much. I am seeing too many papers all the time that have gone through 
honest peer review but contain substantial errors or omissions 
nonetheless, e.g. from misinterpretations of scientific names or 
inappropriate nomenclatural acts due to consultation of the wrong 
sources all the way to elementary violations of Code requirements for 
availability. The main reasons for this appear to be: (1) widespread 
hurried inattention to or even ignorance of proper methods and tools 
(including the ICZN Code), and (2) the fact that most scientific 
publishing (reviewing and even editing) is being done by volunteers who 
have to squeeze such tasks in between their regular, paid duties.

The real problem behind (not only) this quality issue, thus, are the low 
and dwindling numbers of qualified peers seriously engaged in thorough 
testing of manuscripts. If there were plenty of weevil workers 
everywhere, one might hope that enough of them would do 'objective' 
taxonomy and that together they would manage to stem or at least deal 
with the tide of 'subjective' stuff  pumped on the 'market' by "Mr. L.". 
As few active taxonomists as there are in mosts groups, however, even a 
single "Mr. L." can damage relatively large proportions of a group's 
system, with the few remaining colleagues practically unable to clean up 
after him if they also want to get any of their own work done.

I do not believe that consensus or majority-rule approaches could make 
effective remedies. At least on issues dealt with by more than one 
person, "Wikispecies" - like Wikipedia - would not bring consensus 
(stability), but a constant oscillation (in any given moment the 'truth' 
would be the latest version put online). Public reviewing via ZooBank 
prior to acts and data being accepted might help ideally, if it could be 
guaranteed that contentious issues are decided (e.g. by the ICZN) solely 
on the quality of the competing arguments. However, given the current 
shortage of taxonomists, one must expect that still not enough 'serious' 
experts would manage to bother and check everything that would need to 
be checked, and then engage in the tedious process of 'contending'. 
Therefore, well-organised bands of "Mr. L."s out there probably could 
continue to manipulate the system their way. At least, though, 
zoologists at large could gain easier access to more sources and 
opinions than the small, chance selection an individual worker may have 
at hand. That is one of the reasons why I am supporting the ZooBank idea 
as worth a try.

How else to improve on the current situation? Obviously, we'll never 
live in a world in which every country has not one but several expert 
taxonomists for each group of organisms and an operating system in which 
the best in each field have time and are attractively rewarded for 
improving the overall quality and economy of what the system produces, 
i.e. high ratios of sense / nonsense and novelty / redundancy+clutter. 
What would seem feasible though, for all interested individual 
systematists and the organisations they associate in and with, would be 
an initiative for quality in scientific education, and especially in 
zoological systematics curricula, clamoring for renewed attention to 
principles of the scientific method such as that one's published results 
have to be reproducible to others and that cooperative behavior 
improving common goods like the stability of nomenclature is of far 
higher value than petty egotism like maximizing one's list of patronyms. 
With this, at least most of the few systematists growing up after us 
could still know the difference between substantial, quality work and 
hollow, misleading marketing such as "Mr. L."'s.

But - aggravating as it is to toil with the output of a "Mr.L." in the 
confines of one's study - this issue of quality in taxonomy and science 
is but a minute reflection of mounting problems with the quality of 
society and the biosphere in general, and thus all the "Mr. L"s of the 
world seem ridiculously insignificant, minor culprits among the enemies 
and threats we are (or could be) facing. But that, of course, is far 
beyond what this mailing list is for.

-- 
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany