[Taxacom] Pre-submission peer-review and online import of specimen records from BOLD
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Sep 22 23:42:34 CDT 2015
Hi Jason,
Of course I have specific cases in mind, but any general phenomenon is composed of specific cases! If you are implying that such cases are few in the world as a whole, well such an assertion requires evidence. I don't know how widespread the phenomenon is. Maybe things are particularly bad around this neck of the woods, though there is no reason why that should be the case. At any rate, we seem to have lost track of the fact that my only criticism of what Lyubo wrote was that peer reviewers should not be limited to members of "small taxonomic communities". A reviewer does not need to know the taxonomic details. That is not the point of peer review. A review should address whether the manuscript is clearly written and consistent, and whether adequate verifiable supporting evidence is specified for any conclusions/assertions. I have seen quite a few published journal articles and monographs which fail on these basic important criteria. It might be
convenient for a publisher like Lyubo to restrict reviwers to small communities who know one another, because it could result in a faster turnaround, but perhaps only at the price of poorer quality review compared to that of someone more objective and detached from the "small community". Politics infects everything...
Cheers,
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, 4:23 PM
I think you are talking about a
specific case/cases which probably
won´t matter in the long run (decades). In any case, and
regardless of
the intentionality behind this "misinformation", it already
exists in
analog form so it can´t be made worse by open review. In
fact,
breaking it wide open should help correct these errors.
Having said
that, I do worry that the proportion of experts vs the rest
of this
"sharing economy" is stacked against it somehow. Only way to
find out
will be to try it out and see what happens.
Best
Jason
On 23 September 2015 at 13:22, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
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