[Taxacom] General call to collaboration

[George Sangster]

Two days ago, Carlos wrote:
> Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschriftand and ZooKeys. This lack of logic is
> restricted to Pensoft journals.
> I wonder who could profit the most from a pipeline like this, overriding
> all need to diagnose the new taxa from the previous taxa:
> We have all the elements to streamline an output of thousands of new names
> per month: 1) Environmental samples. 2) Metabarcoding. 3) Machines
> assembling the data as data papers and assigning names as arbitrary
> combinations of letters. 4) Machines being the name authors, so that there
> is no one to blame. 5) Compact, inexpensive storage of type specimens, now
> in Eppendorfs (molecules are "parts of animals"). It is a Code-compliant
> and technologically possible scenario.
> Well, definitely for-profit publishers have the most to win from a steady
> input of hundreds and even thousands of pages per month. I don't think that
> stopping illogical novelty claims is among their interests.

I have two comments and a suggestion.

First, the editorial process at ZooKeys, including the decision to 
accept or reject a manuscript, is carried out by the subject editors. 
The decision to publish a manuscript is based on scientific grounds, not 
impact factors or (the author's ability to pay) page fees. The editorial 
process is entirely independent from the commercial aspects of 
publishing the journal. I suppose you agree with me that this is how it 
should be.

Second, you might be interested to read the Criteria for publication 
of new species descriptions in ZooKeys*.*
https://zookeys.pensoft.net/about#TaxonomicTreatments

It was published in January and was the result of multiple rounds of 
consultation among the subject editors of ZooKeys. It was initiated by 
the publisher/owner.

I'd be very interested to learn if we have overlooked anything important.

Instead of going to war, and battling (seemingly) different opinions, 
perhaps we as a group can work towards a universal set of 
recommendations ("best practices") for species descriptions. For 
instance, while publishing a new species with an illustration of a live 
animal as its type specimen (i.e. without a vouchered type specimen) can 
be acceptable under the ICZN, it is not generally a good idea to do so. 
So let's specify what other things a taxonomist must do to make such a 
description acceptable for us. Same with DNA diagnoses. These are 
acceptable (i.e. not explicitly unacceptable) under the ICZN, but they 
are far from ideal, so what hoops should a taxonomist jump through to 
make such a description acceptable? This might turn into a nice 
multi-author paper, useful for authors, reviewers, journal editors and 
teachers. In medicine, it is common to have Standard Operating 
Procedures, and some are adopted by 100s of journals (e.g. 
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/). I suggest we try this approach 
in taxonomy. (I am aware of Judith Winston's 1999 book.)

Have a nice weekend.

All the best,
George

Dr George Sangster
Subject Editor Aves, Zookeys
Naturalis Biodiversity Center
Leiden, the Netherlands