[Taxacom] a biodiversity rant from me [Wheeler et al. 2012]

[Anthony Gill]

Perhaps, but I think there is an element of laziness involved,
particularly if it means they have to cite (and actually use) several
papers rather than one. I also find it curious that such studies never
indicate how study specimens are identified. Presumably there is no
need to cite taxonomic papers and any keys used because
identifications were made using magic.

Tony

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> realistically, this is probably at least in part because non-taxonomists
> (like molecular systematists, etc.) find taxonomic publications difficult to
> understand, and so need a simplified version to get their head around ...
>
> Stephen
>
> From: Anthony Gill <gill.anthony at gmail.com>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: "gread at actrix.gen.nz" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>; "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU.
> EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:57 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] a biodiversity rant from me [Wheeler et al. 2012]
>
> This bit is interesting: "We would add: only cite review papers when
> they contribute something original." I find my own taxonomic papers
> are rarely cited, particularly by molecular systematists and
> non-taxonomists. Instead authors cite field guides, text books (such
> as Nelson's Fishes of the World) or online providers (such as
> Fishbase), even though more reliable information is provided in the
> original papers. This I suspect is commonplace for taxonomy work, and
> one reason we never have particularly high citation indices.
>
> Tony
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Stephen Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>> also, and in line with the quote from Todd, it is probably not a good idea
>> to give a contrary out of step citation to a paper that is obviously
>> ridiculous and probably only out to get citations. It isn't worth citing,
>> and should just be ignored. One should cite only those contrary conclusions
>> that seem reasonably well supported by good science. A judgement call, of
>> course...
>>
>> incidentally, it is perhaps interesting to note that the Costello et al.
>> (2011) paper still hasn't been published in print (First published online:
>> August 18, 2011), even though the journal has a good turnaround with other
>> papers ...
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>> Cc: "TAXACOM@ MAILMAN. NHM. KU. EDU" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] a biodiversity rant from me [Wheeler et al. 2012]
>>
>>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> A contrary out of step citation is still legitimately worth citing of
>> course - in the form "( but see X et al 2011)", and indeed very much of
>> interest (so why are the conclusions different) & would get the citation
>> metric 'credit'.
>>
>> More from Todd et al.  http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08587
>>
>> "[p.302] ‘The author’s responsibilities are absolutely clear: first, to
>> consult the original paper; second, to quote the original material
>> correctly and in context; and third, to present the bibliographic
>> reference accurately’ (* Biebuyck 1992, p. 2). We would add: only cite
>> review papers when they contribute something original, use the citation
>> immediately after the assertion as opposed to grouping references together
>> at the end of the sentence and do not provide long lists of citations if 1
>> or 2 will do."
>>
>> Oh boy, if everyone followed those suggestions we would have some more
>> readable papers.
>>
>> * Biebuyck JF (1992) Concerning the ethics and accuracy of scientific
>> citations. Anesthesiology 77:1–2
>>
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>> On Thu, March 29, 2012 9:44 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> very interesting stuff Geoff! Many thanks!
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
>> these methods:
>>
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:
>>  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Anthony C. Gill
> Natural History Curator
> A12 Macleay Museum
> University of Sydney
> NSW 2006
> Australia.
>
> Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
> Editorial Board, Species and Systematics:
> http://www.ucpress.edu/series.php?ser=spsy
> Editor, Marine and Estuarine Fishes, Zootaxa:
> http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/
>
>



-- 
Dr Anthony C. Gill
Natural History Curator
A12 Macleay Museum
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia.

Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
Editorial Board, Species and Systematics:
http://www.ucpress.edu/series.php?ser=spsy
Editor, Marine and Estuarine Fishes, Zootaxa: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/