[Taxacom] Predatory Open Access Publishers

Kirk Fitzhugh kfitzhugh at nhm.org
Fri Sep 14 20:54:54 CDT 2012


How do you know you have an erroneous result, from which you can decide 
to not explain observations in the same inference? Have you explained 
the observations and decided you don't want the answer corrupted (for 
presumed empirical reasons) by the explanations of additional data? As I 
noted in my previous post, there is no empirical basis for comparing 
cladograms inferred from different data sets, from which some notion of 
contradiction can be derived. The standard for evidential relevance, be 
it positive or negative, is that it has an impact of hypothesis support.

Kirk

On 9/14/2012 6:33 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> I find myself in agreement with the perspective by Zander - that one needs
> to address the explanation in terms of why it exists against other
> contradictory data. One might, for example, propose that molecular data is
> not relevant to a particular morphological pattern because of certain
> qualities in molecular data/analysis that may lead to an erroneous result
> and therefore be irrelevant to the morphological result (i.e. that there is
> no point in combining the data in 'total evidence'.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




More information about the Taxacom mailing list