[Taxacom] are journal-ranking algorithms code-compliant?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Apr 13 18:16:36 CDT 2015

Although I don't disagree with what Fred said, we can nevertheless avoid the problem here by making availability dependent on validation of published descriptions. The descriptions can still be published, as usual, but the new names date from validation.


On Tue, 14/4/15, Fred Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are journal-ranking algorithms code-compliant?
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Tuesday, 14 April, 2015, 12:01 PM
 Quoting Neal Evenhuis
 <neale at bishopmuseum.org>:
 > However, until employers
 (mainly in academia) do away with evaluating
 > their employee taxonomists based on where
 they publish (i.e., high ranking
 journals), many taxonomists will not switch over to this
 > registration/repository
 * I'm glad I
 got my unemployable badge before this ranking of  
 individuals by the ranking of the journals in
 which they publish came  
 in. This practice
 has always seemed to me to be an  
 institutionalization of pure stinking cowardice
 - those seeking to  
 violate the
 commandment "judge not, lest ye be judged" rank
 by popularity criteria solely
 because they're afraid they (perhaps as  
 administrative trolls luring under academic
 bridges) couldn't  
 understand the work
 of the person they're supposed to be evaluating.  
 They fob the job off on a numerical assessment
 of the journals, and go  
 home to
 This is a total
 inversion of the taxonomic notion of
 "publication," in  
 which it
 doesn't matter where you publish something, so long as
 it is  
            Frederick W. Schueler
 & Aleta Karstad
    Mudpuppy Night - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
 Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
      study our books - http://pinicola.ca/books/index.htm
            RR#2 Bishops Mills,
 Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
     on the Smiths
 Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
      (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at
 istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
 "[The] two fundamental steps of scientific
 thought - the conjecture  
 and refutation
 of Popper - have little place in the usual conception  
 of intelligence. If something is to be
 dismissed as inadequate, it is  
 surely not
 Darwin [, whose] works manifest the activity of a mind  
 seeking for wisdom, a value which conventional
 philosophy has largely  
 Ghiselen, 1969. Triumph of the Darwinian Method, p 237.
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list