[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: For the love of Banji
Was there some ICZN rule criticizing the use of new names in titles/abstracts?
In recent or ancient versions of the code? If not, I do not imagine
why this rule, of obviating an important specifier of the content of
the paper, even arose.
2010/2/5 Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On 5 February 2010 22:12, <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Question about the rules of publication:
>> Why are species not mentioned by name in the abstract/paper title? One
>> must sift through a lot of verbiage to find the name (if any). Seems like
>> a lot of time wasted. This has been going on since waaaaay before
>> electronic word searches simplified things.
> Some journals enforce this dumb rule; others don't. For example, JVP
> is quite happy with new-taxon names in article titles. Which I need
> hardly say is a good thing, as it saves us from endless Cope-style
> paper with titles like "Yet another gigantic saurian from the Dakota