[Taxacom] Article 16.2 of the ICZN

[Dick Jensen]

Mike Ivie wrote: "...some are just perpetual screwups who don't care, but those are never going to be fixed."

I wonder - do these same "screwups" write sloppy and inaccurate Methods/Materials for the papers they publish?  If reviewers can take the time to make sure that the M/M sections are properly presented, then they could also take time to make sure that nomenclatural matters are handled properly.  

I agree that it is the responsibility of the author to do it right, but in our peer-review system, reviewers are supposed to prevent poor science, poor methods, and poor nomenclature being published.  As a reviewer, I expect authors to use the code properly and, if I am not sure, I will consult someone who knows the code better than I and pass the response on to the author, who now becomes responsible for making whatever changes are warranted.  But, the final decision rests with the editor, right?  If an editor accepts sloppy work, then the editor is the one to blame when it is published. 

Further, why should following the code be voluntary?  That defeats the purpose of having a code in the first place.  Do editors make other aspects of manuscript preparation voluntary?  None that I have ever worked with do.  

Dick J 

Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

tel: 574-284-4674