[Taxacom] Predatory Open Access Publishers

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Fri Sep 14 16:49:50 CDT 2012


I see "total evidence" as the need to explain all relevant facts, facts
being well-documented observations.

This means first you get rid of facts that are not relevant. In
evolution this means descent with modification of the particular taxon
you are studying. Then you explain all relevant evidence in some
inclusive theory, OR explain in some reasonable way why you can't. For
instance, suppose you get observations of some process that are one
"red" observation and 20 "green" observations. You can't just throw out
the "red." You can't just throw out the "red" because it is rare or
inconvenient. If "red" was generated by a different aspect of the
process you are analyzing, then this is an explanation. 

If morphological analysis says "red" and molecular analysis says "green"
with a ton of more data then you have to explain why morphological
analysis says "red." "Red" is a fact and a probability distribution does
not explain it.

____________________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:45 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Predatory Open Access Publishers

Of course, in the general sense that one should consider all evidence
before making one's choices about what evidence to use.

John Grehan

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
wrote:

> John,
>
> I am referring to the requirement as recognized in all fields of
> science. I'm sure you've read the basic literature on the subject that
> exists beyond the vacuum of systematics. If not, may I direct you to
> these two papers as primers:
>
> Fitzhugh, K. 2006. The 'requirement of total evidence' and its role in
> phylogenetic systematics. Biology & Philosophy 21: 309--351.
>
> Fitzhugh, K. 2012. The limits of understanding in biological
> systematics. Zootaxa 3435: 40--67.
>
> Kirk
>
> On 9/13/2012 2:27 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> > When it comes to the requirement of 'total evidence' being a 'basic
> tenet'
> > I would have to say that the demand for combining molecular and
> > morphological evidence can be more of a total fraud than a tenet.
Since
> > Kirk did not specify what he meant by total evidence I do not
attribute
> the
> > molecular sequence/morphology combination to his label, but I would
> > certainly point out that the idea of combining the evidence is not
> > automatically a basic tenet other than by those who so believe.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Kirk Fitzhugh <kfitzhugh at nhm.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm reminded of what Stephen Stearns says in a Yale University
article,
> >> 'Some Modest Advice for Graduate Students
> >> <http://www.eeb.yale.edu/stearns/advice.htm>:' "The pressure to
publish
> >> has corroded the quality of journals and the quality of
intellectual
> >> life." Perhaps rather than complaining about 'predatory' journals,
we
> >> need to change research standards. Stop thinking that the number of
> >> publications per year or journal impact factor are reasonable
indicators
> >> of the quality of one's research. As one fluent in philosophy of
> >> science, I'm astounded at the poor quality of systematics research
that
> >> regularly gets published in 'high end' journals. We continue to
have a
> >> community that does not understand some of the most basic tenets of
> >> science, e.g. the nature of inference, the requirement of total
> >> evidence, or mechanics of hypothesis testing.
> >>
> >> Kirk
> >>
> >> On 9/13/2012 8:24 AM, Sergio Vargas wrote:
> >>> Dear taxacomers:
> >>>
> >>> A colleague gently send a link to a Nature editorial on Open
Access
> >>> publishing. In case you are interested please find the link(s)
below.
> >>> I know the topic has been raised before in the list. I think this
will
> >>> be especially important in taxonomy now that e-only publication is
> >>> possible.
> >>>
> >>> Predatory publishers are corrupting open access:
> >>>
> >>
>
http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-acce
ss-1.11385
> >>> (A) List of predatory open access publishers:
> >>> http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>>
> >>> sergio
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> >> Curator of Polychaetes
> >> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> >> Research & Collections Branch
> >> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> >> 900 Exposition Blvd
> >> Los Angeles CA 90007
> >> Phone: 213-763-3233
> >> FAX: 213-746-2999
> >> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> >> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >>
> >> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
of
> >> these methods:
> >>
> >> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> >> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
of
> these methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> > .
> >
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
> Curator of Polychaetes
> Invertebrate Zoology Section
> Research & Collections Branch
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
> 900 Exposition Blvd
> Los Angeles CA 90007
> Phone: 213-763-3233
> FAX: 213-746-2999
> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here




More information about the Taxacom mailing list