important concern for scientists (off of: "copyright and check lists")

[Martin Spies]

Chris Thompson wrote:
> BUT there is a more important concern for scientists. And that is
> respect for the work of our predecessors. So, one always needs to
> include attribution to those prior checklists / works that one uses in
> making their new checklists. For an Academic person, the charges of
> Plagiarism can be much more serious that violation of copyright.

Besides acknowledging the shoulders we stand on, an at least equally
strong commitment ought to be to stay within the scientific method,
specifically its mandate to ensure reproducibility.

I know some compilers of faunal catalogs who will not consider a
secondary record, e.g. a species name in a list not based on personal
observations by the list's author, if it is not accompanied by a
reference to either a publication or reproducible voucher material.
And if I see a listing lacking such source information, I certainly
place far less trust into its contents than into those of a
well-referenced catalog.

To paraphrase Chris' last sentence: For anybody considering himself a
scientist, evidence that he doesn't care to work scientifically ought
to be even more serious than suspicions of plagiarism.

Regards,

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany