[Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR

Fri Jul 3 13:47:40 CDT 2020

Dear colleagues,

just a brief comment on the taxonomic impact factor (TIF) and
nomenlatural impact factor (NIF) just suggested. I think there is another
problem with these, not just the incomplete data in ZooBank (as these can
be completed).

However, how do you think such impact factors should work? Will you count
new species/taxa described or nomenlatoric acts published, and rank
journals based on that. I think this would soon result in the same
non-sense as the current impact factor is: journals will start to compete
to publish as many new species or nomenclatural acts as possible, and this
can be even more detrimental to taxonomy as the current IF issues. I think
what we should aim to do is to produce high-quality taxonomic studies which
means studies that are easy-to-use for future taxonomists or other people
working with taxa. That in my opinion means properly described or diagnosed
taxa, with really good illustrations, photos, in relevant cases and authors
capable of doing it providing some basic DNA data (barcodes), and in
problematic taxa providing sound arguments for taxonomic decisions made.
This is what we should focus on and use as a measure of quality. If you
propose to just simply count species descriptions, it is the same as
counting citations. Journals and people will resign on quality, low-quality
taxonomists and journals describing hundreds of new taxa without any proper
reasoning or documentations will become super-stars overnight, and journals
and authors which focus on quality rather than quantity will be again
punished. If this is your view of the future of taxonomy, go ahead. For me,
this is a nightmare I never wish to live in.

Greetings from Prague

Martin

pá 3. 7. 2020 v 20:22 odesílatel Richard Pyle via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> napsal:

> As I described to ICZN Commissioners, the database behind ZooBank (which
> involves much, much more than zoological nomenclature) has the capabilities
> of tracking data about the true impact of taxonomic works *very* robustly
> -- not just on a paper-citing-paper basis, but on a names-created-reused
> basis and names-synonymized basis (and multiple other bases).  The metrics
> could be applied to journals as a whole, individual papers, individual
> taxa, and collected contributions of individual authors.  Borrowing from
> the Google PageRank approach (i.e., not just how many people cite you, but
> the collective taxonomic clout of those doing the citing), it wouldn't be
> that hard to come up with a "TIF" (Taxonomic Impact Factor); or "NIF"
> (Nomenclatural Impact Factor); or both, which could be applied to journals,
> published works, names and authors.  The primary stumbling block to doing
> it right now is that the database is largely incomplete (only about 800K
> taxonomic name usages, anchored to ~366K names, rooted in ~80K
> publications).  However, with a moderate amount of funding (well within NSF
> range), tight collaboration with organizations like BHL, PLAZI and
> taxonomic publishers, and a few years of effort, something like this could
> not only be built, but could be more or less automatically maintained into
> perpetuity.  It could also be entirely transparent and open access.
>
> As for this business of "Committees-don't-need-to-understand-the-papers
> Indices", I find this utterly inexcusable.  Either universities that fall
> into this trap do not regard taxonomy as “science” (in which case, shame on
> them); or they are oblivious to how misrepresentative IF can be for this
> field (in which case, again, shame on them!)  What would it take to correct
> this naïve practice?  High-profile multi-authored publication in a journal
> that does have a high impact factor (i.e., so it “counts”)?
>
> My brother (well known in Bird circles) conceived of the concept of the
> I/E ratio.  It represents the proportion of a policy or action by an
> organization that is the result of “Incompetence”, vs. the proportion that
> is the result of “Evil” intent.  The premise is that the policy or action
> is inherently bad; but the question relates to how intentional the “bad”
> is. It’s normally reserved for politicians and large financial
> organizations.  But in this case, I wonder what the I/E ratio is for
> university policies that apply such high importance on IF.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Database Coordinator
> Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> BishopMuseum.org
> Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the
> exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> > Frederick W. Schueler via Taxacom
> > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 6:56 AM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR
> >
> > On 03-Jul.-20 12:22 p.m., ANTONIO GARCIA VALDECASAS HUELIN via Taxacom
> > wrote:
> >
> > >   It seems to me that any relation of Citation Index  with Taxonomy is
> being
> > detrimental and, at times, offensive.
> >
> > * well, this is a song we've heard sung since these
> Committees-don't-need-to-
> > understand-the-papers Indices first began to be published. Now that
> names are
> > being registered, it would seem just a matter of programming to create
> indices
> > of 1) taxonomic/nomenclatoral activity of authours, and 2) of the
> usefulness of
> > journals to taxonomy.
> > The first could be a somehow-weighted count of the number of
> descriptions or
> > changes in status proposed, and the other the percentage of papers in the
> > journal which contain taxonomic actions.
> >
> > This would mean that taxonomists would have an independent index to cite
> in
> > situations of hiring or promotion, rather than suffering from the low
> status
> > which citation-counting accords to papers of long-term significance.
> >
> > not that I have any experience with being hired or promoted,
> >
> > fred
> > =======================================================
> >
> > > Doug Yanega via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> escribió:
> > >
> > >> Some (many?) of you may have heard that some major taxonomic
> > >> journals, including Zootaxa and the International Journal of
> > >> Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, have just been removed
> > >> entirely from Impact Factor indexing, jeopardizing the future of
> > >> taxonomic research by penalizing taxonomists who choose and have
> > >> chosen to publish in these or other suppressed journals.
> > >>
> > >> For those who find this a significant concern, I am sharing below a
> > >> message from Frank-Thorsten Krell, a fellow ICZN Commissioner, which
> > >> gives some useful background and relevant links. I have the sense,
> > >> likely shared by others, that this may be a /fait accompli/, a
> > >> decision not subject to review or reversal, but *maybe* there are
> > >> some human beings involved in this decision who can be contacted and
> > >> persuaded to reconsider. Some of the information Frank presents below
> > >> may be helpful in making the case.
> > >>
> > >> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > >> Subject:         Zootaxa taken off of JCR
> > >> Date:         Fri, 3 Jul 2020 05:33:35 +0000
> > >> From:         Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
> > >> To:         (recipient list suppressed)
> > >>
> > >> I have written about impact factor suppression six years ago:
> > >>
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270396659_Losing_the_numbers
> > >> _game_abundant_journal_self-citations_put_journals_at_risk_for_a_life
> > >> _without_Impact_Factor
> > >> Abstract:  “To counteract impact factor manipulations by editors, in
> > >> 2008 Thomson Reuters started suppressing journals with abundant
> > >> self-citations and excluding them from the Journal Citation Reports®
> > >> for two years. The number of banned journals rose from 9 in 2007 to
> > >> 66 in 2012. Abundant journal self-citations can be due to the nature
> > >> of the journal or unethical strategies of editors, such as coercive
> > >> citations or citation cartels. Regardless of whether unethical
> > >> behaviour was involved, journals with excessive self-citations are
> > >> suppressed by Thomson Reuters. While unethical behaviour should be
> > >> discouraged, depriving the accused journals of the benefit of the
> > >> doubt can lead to unfair treatment.”
> > >>
> > >> Now Zootaxa, but also the International Journal of Systematic and
> > >> Evolutionary Microbiology, the official journal of record for new
> > >> microbial taxa, fell into that trap.
> > >>
> > >> Yesterday I submitted a Correspondence to Nature about that (which
> > >> will be rejected in about 15 days – or not):
> > >>
> > >> “Impact Factor—Taxonomy cannot win
> > >>
> > >> Twenty years ago, I laid out why Impact Factors don’t work as
> > >> performance indicators for taxonomic research (Nature *405*, 507–508;
> > >> 2000; *415*, 957; 2002), referring to the lack of core-journals as
> > >> one of the reasons. While taxonomical publishing is still extremely
> > >> fragmented, more than most other fields, there are examples of
> > >> successful consolidation. One is /Zootaxa/, a mega-journal that
> > >> meanwhile publishes about 25% of all new zoological species and other
> > >> taxa (Z.-Q. Zhang, /Zootaxa/ *4000*, 596–600; 2015). Another example
> > >> is the /International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary
> > >> Microbiology/, the official journal of record for new microbial taxa.
> > >> According to the /International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes/,
> > >> all new prokaryote names have to be published or get validated in
> > >> this one journal (C.T. Parker /et al./, /Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microb./
> > >> *69*, S1–S111; 2019). Now Clarivate Plc, the owner of the Journal
> > >> Impact Factor, has revoked the 2019 Impact Factors for both those and
> > >> 31 other journals because of their high rate of journal
> > >> self-citations (https://retractionwatch.com/wp-
> > content/uploads/2020/06/Title-Suppress-2.pdf).
> > >> Revoking Journal Impact Factors has been a means to fight attempts of
> > >> citation manipulations by journals since 2008 (F.-T. Krell, /Eur. Sci.
> > >> Ed./ *40*, 36–38; 2014). However, in journals dominating a field or
> > >> being a mandatory outlet, such high rates are expected and
> > >> unavoidable, and not necessarily indicating a manipulative strategy.
> > >> Depriving leading taxonomic journals of their Journal Impact Factors
> > >> can have devastating effects on the evaluation of taxonomists and on
> > >> taxonomy as a whole, as long as this metric is still used as a
> > >> performance indicator for publishing scientists.
> > >>
> > >> *Frank-T. Krell *Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, USA.
> > >>
> > >> frank.krell at dmns.org <mailto:frank.krell at dmns.org>”[1]
> > >>
> > >> Here are the links to the referenced Nature correspondences:
> > >>
> > >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12467244_Impact_factors_aren
> > >> %27t_relevant_to_taxonomy
> > >>
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11486254_Why_impact_factors_
> > >> don%27t_work_for_taxonomy This action of Clarivate can have extremely
> > >> negative consequences for taxonomists evaluated by Impact
> > >> Factor-counters. It can have negative consequences for Zootaxa. It
> > >> can even have negative consequences for taxonomy as a whole as one of
> > >> the most prominent taxonomic outlets is now no longer an option for
> > >> many academic taxonomists. Very bad and annoying.
> > >>
> > >> I see little hope that academic administrators around the world will
> > >> suddenly become educated and understand the shortcomings of the
> > >> Journal Impact Factor. I would guess that the Impact Factor is here
> > >> to stay and will be senselessly applied to evaluate scientists. Oh, I
> > >> wrote about that, too:
> > >>
> > >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267329241_The_Journal_Impact
> > >> _Factor_as_a_performance_indicator
> > >> This only for people who want to know more about the Impact Factor
> game.
> > >>
> > >> We need to consider how taxonomy and success of taxonomists are
> > >> evaluated and measured in academia. Publications are key. For our
> > >> long term strategy, we need to avoid all unintended consequences that
> > >> further harm the taxonomic enterprise (additionally to lack of
> > >> funding, increasing, often lethal red tape, lack of career
> > >> opportunities for new blood, etc. etc.).
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >           Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> >           Fragile Inheritance Natural History Mudpuppy Night in Oxford
> Mills -
> > https://www.facebook.com/MudpuppyNight/
> > 'Daily' Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> > 4&6 St-Lawrence Street Bishops Mills, RR#2 Oxford Station, Ontario K0G
> 1T0
> >    on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain  44.87156° N 75.70095° W
> > (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > nationally recognized as incapable of generating a net income from our
> work -
> > http://www.wwf.ca/newsroom/?31661/Glen-Davis-Conservation-Leadership-
> > Prize
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> > list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> > owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be
> > searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>

-- 
*Martin Fikáček, MSc. PhD*

*.Department of EntomologyNATIONAL MUSEUMNATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMCirkusová
1740CZ-193 00 Praha 9 - Horní PočerniceCzech RepublicT: +420 224 497 911E:
mfikacek at gmail.com <mfikacek at gmail.com>W: www.cercyon.eu
<http://www.cercyon.eu>*