[Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import of specimen records from BOLD
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Sep 22 22:22:39 CDT 2015
Jason,
I am not talking about that sort of misinformation. It does not matter whether the misinformation is intentional or not. The problem arises when there is a solid reluctance to admit that a mistake has been made, and an equally solid reluctance to fix it. That is what I am talking about. It is about individuals and institutions who talk up substandard work, give the reader as little actual data as possible, because this could lead to mistakes being discovered, and who obstruct others from investigating the issue for themselves. It is abou authors who just don't care whether it is misinformation or not. Therein lies the problem. There is actually nothing terrible with an error if it gets fixed. No blame. Everybody makes mistakes, but some are not inclined to admit that they do, and neither are they inclined to fix the mistake or let anyone else do it for them.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 23/9/15, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import of specimen records from BOLD
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Wednesday, 23 September, 2015, 1:19 PM
"...to prevent
readers from being misled by misinformation published
by others, particularly if it contradicts what
I might tell them, and
yet the
misinformation is selling itself as authoritative on the
basis
of "reputability" of
institutions, equally carefully "groomed"
reputations of authors, etc. Misinformation is
worse than no
information."
I honestly can´t understand
what is bugging you so much Stephen.
Intentional or unintentional misinformation? I
will assume the latter
and simply say, so
what? The more "expert" you become the more you
realize how little you know and how much
knowledge is based on
educated guesses. If
you let this be your guiding principle you will
be paralyzed by fear of
"misinforming" and not publish anything. The
point, as Robin said, is to tell others what
you know so they can use
it. If wrong
somebody else will then correct it later, maybe inching
closer to the "truth"
I think Pensoft´s new
peer-review is the best thing to have been
developed recently in publication. DOIs and
hyperlinks are just lights
and whistles but
this will actually make life a lot easier. Now for a
fully digitized biodiversity library that is
not pre-1920´s...
Jason
On 23
September 2015 at 10:01, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> Robin,
>
> It is a tad unclear what point you are
trying to make, and if you are agreeing or disagreeing with
me (which, incidentally, is exactly the sort of thing that a
reviewer should address for manuscripts, i.e. clarifying the
point that the author is trying to make). Whatever your
point, I would just like to comment that, for me, the most
important thing is not to publish what I know so that others
can know it as well (which is not to say that this isn't
important), but rather to prevent readers from being misled
by misinformation published by others, particularly if it
contradicts what I might tell them, and yet the
misinformation is selling itself as authoritative on the
basis of "reputability" of institutions, equally
carefully "groomed" reputations of authors, etc.
Misinformation is worse than no information.
>
> Cheers, Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 23/9/15, Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
RE: [Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import
of specimen records from BOLD
> To:
"'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
"'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Wednesday, 23 September, 2015,
11:37 AM
>
>
Stephen,
>
> Shortly
after I had finished
> my PhD, and the
thesis had been accepted for publication,
>
> I had finished and
had published several
> short but
contributive papers in a fairly
> short
period of time in several journals. To
> me, getting the information out there
was,
> and always is to me, far more
important than
> the particular journal
I publish in.
>
> At
that time, I was in Ottawa. At coffee one
> morning, an older, estblished
taxonomist
> said to me, in front of
others,
>
>
"Robin, what are you
> doing?
Setting yourself up as an expert? Everywhere I
> look I
> see
another new paper of
> yours."
>
> I replied,
> "Not at all. I am trying to put the
information out
> there so that
others
> know what I know, so
> that they do not have to ask me for IDs.
They can look and
> ID
> things for themselves."
>
> There was a moment
while he
> and several of his buddies
guffawed, then I added,
>
> "But, on the other hand,
> if you don't publish much, everyone
has to send material
>
> to you for ID. In that case, you are
seen
> as the expert."
>
> I
> heard no more caustic comments from him
- ever. In fact,
> he became rather
pleasant
> after that.
>
> Robin
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent:
>
September-22-15 4:03 PM
> To: Doug
Yanega
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Pre-submission
> peer-review and online import of
specimen records from
> BOLD
>
> I wouldn't
take
> too much notice of Doug's
sermon about Wikipedia. It
> works OK
for very simple stuff, but not for anything else.
> It isn't only vandals and/or
crackpots who get blocked
> from
editing. There are many "power games" going
> on behind the scenes. Everybody wants to
do things their
> way, and nobody likes
anyone coming in and making
>
contributions on a significantly large scale. Actually
very
> little taxonomy/biodiversity
related stuff gets done now at
> all on
Wikipedia. Doug's own contributions are really
> loittle more than a drop in an ocean of
oceans! The reason
> why it comes up
first in a Google search has nothing
>
whatsoever to do with the quality of content. It is
> unfortunate that the very first thing a
young person might
> find on a topic
could well be a load of Wikipedia
>
rubbish.
>
>
Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 23/9/15, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re:
> [Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and
online import of
> specimen records
from BOLD
> To:
> Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, 23
September, 2015, 9:38
> AM
>
> On
9/22/15 12:50 PM,
> Neal
> Evenhuis wrote:
> >
>
No Doug, the problem is
> not the print
> journals. They do what businesses do
> >
>
-- they make money.
> >
>
> > The problem(s) are
> academic systems
> that evaluate their professors on the
> >
>
basis of the journals they publish in (the
>
> higher impact the
better). That
> > has
> resulted in the "Big
Power
> Publishers" to have
> academics by
> the
> > short-and-curlies
>
> (actually more like
racketeering) and can thus charge
> > oodles of money to
subscribe and
> authors
> are forced to shy away
from
> > online
> only/low impact
> journals in order to get high
ranking,
>
>
rewards,
> > evals,
etc.
>
> >
> > Once the evaluation
> system for taxonomists
changes, taxonomists
> can feel
> > free to publish
elsewhere
> than high impact
> print journals because
> they are
> > no
> longer
>
being held hostage by the current academic evaluation
> system.
> I'm not trying to
> be overly
> contentious, as I do see
your
> point, but:
> can anyone offer any
> statistics to back this
> up? Specifically,
> if you
> ignore fossil taxa
>
> entirely, just for
the moment, what percentage of all
> cumulative taxonomic works,
worldwide,
> appear
> in legitimately "high
> impact"
> journals? My
> impression is that it is a very small
>
> percentage;
> in fact, for many of the
> taxonomists I know (mostly
working on
> arthropods), if
they stopped publishing in
> their present journals of
>
> choice and
> switched to, say, Zootaxa
or
> ZooKeys, their impact factor
>
> would
probably go UP rather than down. I
> honestly don't think
I've ever
> heard of a
taxonomist (who did not work on
> fossils) whose job was
>
> imperiled by the
low
> impact factor of
their
> publications, as opposed to
> how much grant
> money they brought in, or some
> other less
> arbitrary
> criteria. As such,
> while I have little doubt it
exists, I have to
> wonder
> just how serious a force this
is
> behind our
> present predicament.
>
> Peter
> Rauch
>
wrote:
> > How does
the
>
>
"peer", as in "peer review", play in
> this
> >
>
still-vaguely-described "open
>
> access" process ?
> >
> > What mechanism(s) would
be needed /
> useful
> to deal with the presumably
huge
> > number
> of
>
"reviews" of also-presumably
>
> still-not-published
draft documents ?
>
> >
> > It's easy enough
> to say that poor quality
reviews can simply be
> ignored,
> or
> > can be
> put to rest handily by other,
> more
>
competent reviewers. But, that
> >
> itself implies that there
will be such more
> competent
> reviewers who will
> > indeed have the time
> and
>
patience to read, think about, and comment on
> > those incompetent
reviews.
> >
> > I understand --I
> think!?!-- the notion of
removing physical
> paper from the
> > final production
> process, and I understand
> --I think-- the
> notion of "open
> >
>
> access" to information.
> >
> > What I am asking about
is what will be
> the
> mechanisms to address the
> > then-open
> floodgates to
> gratuitous(?) commentary on draft works
such
> that a
> > "fair"
> (and
> authoritative / professional)
handling
> of all that input
> is
> >
>
possible ?
>
> Open resources
> like Wikipedia deal with this
> easily, and
> admirably, and
> routinely. Any
> Wikipedia article has one
visible
> manifestation, open to
> editing, while
> commentary goes on a linked
> "talk
> page". The editing
> history
> is timestamped, and visible,
and subject to
> reversion to
> previous versions if
> necessary - as is the talk
> page. There are
> many
> rules in place
>
> regarding proper
editing procedures and especially
> etiquette, and editors who
cannot abide by
> those
rules (e.g., vandalism)
> have their
> edits reverted, or
> if they are persistent and
disruptive,
>
> they can be banned
(short-term or
> long-term),
as has happened to many
> trolls
> and crackpots who have
> tried to set up shop on Wikipedia.
> That
> kind of behavior is spotted
and weeded
> out very
quickly, because there
> are
lots of
> eyes watching.
> The floodgates on Wikipedia are already
open
>
> - to the entire world, in
> fact - and yet it
> functions quite well,
> because it is
> self-policing,
> based on explicit policies.
Transparency
>
> and
inclusivity go a long way, and synergize
> well. Articles on WP
>
> increase in
quality,
> ratchet-like,
over
> time, and setbacks are always
> only
>
temporary. If you had a single public
>
> review forum that
included
> all of the
> world's taxonomists, then
it would
> function wonderfully
> well,
> because nothing would slip
through
> the proverbial
cracks, and if we
> followed
> the example of
> Wikipedia for editing policies, your
worst
>
> fears
> about gratuitous commentary
would
> not
> be realized.
>
> I
suggest this
> challenge
for
> those of you who are skeptical:
take a
>
> moment
right now to enter the name of a
>
> higher-level taxon you know very
> well
> (family or higher) into
Google. The odds are
> very good
that
> a
>
> Wikipedia entry
will be the top hit, or
> at
>
least one of the top 5. Open
> the
> Wikipedia article, and see
how much of it is
> legitimately
> inaccurate
>
> (not incomplete -
that is
> unavoidable -
or
> slightly out-of-date, I mean
> actual
>
factual errors as in "this is not
> true
>
now and never has been
> true"). It
> should be pretty rare to find
such errors, and
> it would be
>
> even
rarer if
> more taxonomists spent
more
> time on
> Wikipedia.
> Self-policing is an
> approach that can and does
work, and works
> better
> and better with increasing
> community buy-in. I
> maintain that the same
>
> would
apply to
> online
> review of scientific works.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> --
>
> Doug Yanega
> Dept. of Entomology
> Entomology
> Research Museum
> Univ. of California,
> Riverside, CA 92521-0314
> skype:
>
dyanega
> phone: (951)
>
> 827-4315
(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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to
1992 may be
> searched at:
http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of
> Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28
years of
> Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years
of Taxacom in 2015.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of
Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list