[Taxacom] Max Planck Society cancels 1,200 Springer journals
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Oct 30 02:44:32 CDT 2007
> Given that taxonomy papers do not yield high impact factors
They would if people were in the habit (as I am) of citing the full
publication of the original description for every taxon name mentioned in
> why do we care about that
I actually don't.
> and not, instead, urge our
> institutions to change their assessment?
What do the "institutions" have to do with it? If you mean in terms of
hiring staff, then again it comes back to the people who sit on hiring
committees (i.e., for the most part, us).
> More importantly, if we stick to open access - that includes
> also journals which do allow self archiving or the so-called
> Green road to Open Access, then colleagues well beyond our
> one little sphere of interests will use what we publish,
> because they actually find it.
I agree -- this will increasingly become more important over time, as more
and more people begin to rely on the internet to get access to scientific
information. I don't think this is necessarily good for science if good
science isn't published open access -- which is why good scientists ought to
recognize that, in the long run, the safe bet for leaving a legacy is to
focus on open-access publishing.
> Since the 250th anniversary of the 10th edition of Systema
> Naturae is next year, we should honor it by agreeing that we
> only publish in journals which allow either the Green or the
> Gold Road of Open Access. We as author do have a real impact
> on this outcome.
Exactly my original point. I plan to do exactly this from now on.
More information about the Taxacom