[Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR

Fri Jul 3 19:37:07 CDT 2020

Very interesting views by R. Pyle and M. Ivie. For me it was shocking to
read today what happened with Zootaxa, because it affects directly and
indirectly taxonomy. They (Clarivate Analytics) have misused their criteria
in the case of Zootaxa.

They say
<https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/jcr-suppression-policy-2020.pdf>
:

"Distortion of citations, no matter their source, is harmful to the
scholarly record."

So, for them, increasing and systematic production of new knowledge (like
it has happened in Zootaxa) is harmful.

I do not think or hope that Clarivate Analytics would change. It is obvious
that they do not care and/or they serve other political agendas.

Institutions are made of scientists/authors and institutions should
understand how harmful these decisions are for any discipline. And instead
of trying to change Clarivate, they could change the metrics used. And I do
not think that another metric is necessary.

Many institutions have abandoned Impact Factor and use Scimago
<https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=4700151916&tip=sid&clean=0>
in their evaluations. And also I think that Scopus' CiteScore
<https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/4700151916> is a better alternative than
Impact Factor. Both have a more inclusive policy than IF.

All the best,

Evan

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 20:50, Richard Pyle via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> All: the thread below was unintentionally not CC'd to the Taxacom list.
> Resending the thread, herewith... [start at the bottom]
>
> I'm wondering if a letter explaining the fallacy of the JCR system as it
> applies specifically to Taxonomy (with an explanation for why the field of
> taxonomy is so vitally important at this point in history, e.g.:
> https://youtu.be/bJa7xHLeo9g), sent to the folks at JCR might have an
> "impact".  According to ZooBank, there are 23,418 unique authors among the
> 22,592 published works in Zootaxa.  I imagine that a letter signed by
> >20,000 credentialed scientists ought to get their attention.  And if not,
> then perhaps a short note to a high IF journal like Science or Nature
> authored by so many scientists representing such a core and fundamental
> field to all of biology might get some attention. And if the high IF
> journals don't bite, perhaps a well-coordinated media outreach leveraging
> the likely thousands of institutions with whom those tens of thousands of
> authors are affiliated might force the issue.  If done well, it could also
> serve as a useful "teachable moment" for fellow scientists and the general
> public about why taxonomy matters.
>
> 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: Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 9:39 AM
> > To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR
> >
> > The only solution that I can see is a major, world-wide effort to get
> > a one-year stay of execution for Zootaxa and Int. J. Syst. Evol.
> > Microb. Then, the editors must put into place instructions to authors
> > that artificially require no more than 25% autocitations.  Perhaps a
> > second journal with at different name, but in reality Zootaxa, could
> > be used to split papers, an author being required to rotate from one
> > title to the other with each submission.  These are of course absurd
> > ideas on the surface, but if it is really important to have a
> megajournal with an IF, it is just required by the rules of the game.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On 7/3/2020 1:19 PM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> > > Mike:
> > >
> > > Yes, you are right, of course.  Sigh.
> > >
> > > Martin: I think you misunderstand the core concept of the metric.
> > > It would
> > not be a simple measure of quantity over quality -- in fact, quite the
> > opposite.  I could explain what I mean by this, but as Mike rightly
> > points out, it would probably just be futile to pursue these sorts of
> metrics anyway.
> > >
> > > 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: Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
> > >> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 9:13 AM
> > >> To: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Zootaxa taken off of JCR
> > >>
> > >> Richard,
> > >>
> > >> You are using a logical solution to an illogical problem.
> > >> Administrators who want to use the IF (and not all institutions
> > >> have these idiots) want something to avoid responsibly. They want a
> > >> single measure to use across disciplines, so they can hide from the
> > >> hard work of real evaluations, and all the messy extenuating
> > >> circumstances that come with it.  Create a better but narrow
> > >> measure for taxonomy, and they will just not use it. Waste of time
> > >> to even try that .  Good idea,
> > agreed. Possible, agreed.
> > >> Better than what is used now, agreed, but not something that will
> > >> be used by those who care about the IF, and therefore will not
> > >> address the problem at hand.
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >>
> > >> On 7/3/2020 12:22 PM, Richard Pyle via Taxacom wrote:
> > >>> 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
>
> [etc...]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>