[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Publication Validity and Quality
Does anyone know if the ICZN ever ruled on the Hoser's snake taxonomic
work? There may be some relevance here.
Harris, Jerald wrote:
I think the debates raging here, SV-POW, and elsewhere, stimulated
unintentionally as they were by Rob Gay's booklet, are good, healthy, and
necessary. But in order for there to ever be some resolution to this set of
problems, perhaps it's time that we started discussion about _solutions_,
rather than circling around the issues. I know that PhyloCode has some verbage
discussing the requirement for peer-review, and that's a start, but here's some
* who should (or will) define what is and is not a "publication" for the purposes of
taxonomic validity? The ICZN? The PhyloCode? A third, entirely separate committee? The ICZN, as
others have noted, is either wholly intractable and stolid, or else it moves in a tectonic time
frame and is therefore useless in light of the rapid pace of technological change. I don't know
nearly enough about the PhyloCode to comment on its ability, but have to wonder whether or not the
idea of a publication is too different from its primary mandate to need to fall under its purview.
A third organization -- the International Commission on Publication Validation or somesuch...? Who
would be on that commission -- taxonomists, obviously, but should publishers have representation,
too? Who would choose these people? Of course, even if such a body existed and had a set of
definition, how would it be enforced? Or labeled (e.g., a "stamp of approval")?
* what criteria should be used to define "publication"? Most seem to believe that peer review should be a primary consideration, and I actually agree...but as many have noted, it's hardly a universal panacea -- there have been perfectly awful papers published that have been through obviously lapse peer review, down even to terrible grammar, let alone facts. It's obviously impractical that all peer reviews should have to go through some sort of singular committee that assesses whether or not the peer reviews have been adequate -- actually, that's what individual editors (or editorial boards) for individual publications are _supposed_ to do, so it all comes down to individual variation between editors...and some are clearly more lapse (or less able, I hate to think) in doing their duties...perhaps for perfectly valid reasons (they have to teach, write grant proposals, write papers of their own, supervise students, etc.), or perhaps from sheer laziness (or laissez-faire attitude about acceptability). Would reviews be any better if, for example, reviewers were paid to review? If there were full-time reviewers without other duties? Should publishers themselves, then, have a say about what they will or won't accept? Are they even educated enough on the subject to do so? I'm not pretending to have any answers here -- I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about this subject and haven't come up with any answers...personally, I try and apply a very high standard of rigor when I review papers, but I'm far from perfect and certainly miss things, especially on subjects where my own knowledge is, um, less than maximal. So when I see crap get published, I get a bit irked with the authors _and_ the reviewers, and wonder how the heck the paper passed muster -- obviously, _my_ idea of muster, but clearly not a _universal_ concept of muster!
Food for thought...
Jerry D. Harris
Director of Paleontology
Dixie State College
225 South 700 East
St. George, UT 84770 USA
Phone: (435) 652-7758
Fax: (435) 656-4022
"I have noticed even people who
claim everything is predestined, and
that we can do nothing to change it,
look before they cross the road."
-- Stephen Hawking
"Prediction is very difficult,
especially of the future."
-- Niels Bohr