[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Pricesaurus = Anhanguera (Pterosauria) (free pdf)

> The problem is who is to decide what constitutes valid peer review?
> If you send the manuscript to one or two paleontologists who may not
> be subject experts, is this as valid a review as sending it to two
> persons who have published extensively on the subject?  What if they
> have published extensively, but their views are not held by most in
> the field, does their review still count as "valid" for the purposes
> of the IZCN?  I agree this needs to be done but it is a very slippery
> slope.

While I'm not aware of cases where this is a pressing problem, it's an 
interesting question in view of the fact that -- unlike the ICZN -- the ICPN 
(PhyloCode) _will_ require peer review for valid publication of nomenclatural 
acts (Article 4.2), but doesn't define it except by Note 4.2.2, which reads in 
its entirety:

"Approval of a work by a thesis or dissertation committee does not constitute 
peer review."

Note 4.2.1 states: "If an entire book is not peer-reviewed or a periodical is 
not consistently peer-reviewed, the article or chapter in which a name or 
nomenclatural act appears must be peer-reviewed in order to qualify as 
published." That's it so far.