[Taxacom] Vital study of an organism on planet Earth

Geoff Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Sat Jun 16 19:56:48 CDT 2012

Thanks Michael,

Oh the folly of it. Why is this irritating vagueness done? My theory is
that it's a misguided attempt to make the research seem so transcending in
results and importance that the actual taxa don't matter.  Well they do -
every time. This work, poorly keyworded, would not have been easily found
by the few people it's most relevant to - the bryozoologists (except
Stephen has now helped them out).

In your example there is a natural point in the abstract flow where the
family could be revealed. It isn't. Grrrh!


On Sat, June 16, 2012 7:18 pm, Michael Heads wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
> I had to laugh when I saw your link. Here's another one:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04057.html
> It's quite a common style now, but really annoying. Pierre Jolivet was
> complaining about it a while ago. Editors tell you not to mention the name
> of an organsm in the title - apparently it isn't good for sales. So if you
> don't mention it in the abstract, that makes it even better...
> Michael Heads
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> Sorry, the title, abstract and even the keywords won't give away what
>> it's
>> about. But if you have access and you go to page 2 at the bottom we
>> promise that there will be a taxon name mentioned, and you then can
>> decide
>> whether you are further interested.  And living things all really work
>> the
>> same way, don't they, same basic principles, so it's not as if doing
>> that
>> will waste anyone's time.
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/11-1448.1
>> We hope this style catches on.
>> Sincerely,
>> The authors

More information about the Taxacom mailing list