[Taxacom] are journal-ranking algorithms code-compliant?
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Apr 13 20:08:10 CDT 2015
Doug Yanega said [Quote]So, if Zootaxa went from 25% of all names to 100%, ...?[Unquote]
It might not look too good if the ICZN ever tried to declare Zootaxa as the sole valid journal for zoological nomenclature, since it is privately owned by an ICZN commissioner. Even if he sold it beforehand, its market value would be greatly increased if this were known to be in the pipeline. At least it would solve the problem that the electronic amendment seems to have been written with the Zootaxa publishing model firmly in mind (and little or no thought given to other publishing models), though one could perhaps see the whole thing as someone playing a long game for personal gain. I'm not suggesting, of course, that this is the case, but only that it might look that way.
Also, the microbiology system is a bit pointless. It simply creates two different systems of nomenclature, one just slightly more "official" than the other. For most intents and purposes, candidatus names are just fine as names for taxa, and their validation in IJSEM adds nothing but a bureaucratic rubber stamp. I guess that there is a bit of bureaucrat in every scientist, defines as making things overly complicated for no practical gain.
On Tue, 14/4/15, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are journal-ranking algorithms code-compliant?
To: "Roderic Page" <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 14 April, 2015, 1:18 PM
On 4/13/15 4:44 PM,
Roderic Page wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> Alas that’s not how
impact factor works. It’s a function of both the
> number of articles published by a journal,
and the number of
> citations, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
> Given that most
taxonomic work is likely to few citations (certainly
> over the two-year period typically used
when calculating impact
Consider Zootaxa, far and away the largest journal in
> zoological taxonomy. In 2013 approximately
a quarter of all published
names were published in Zootaxa, but its impact factor in
> same year was 1.060
> A mega journal for
taxonomy is pretty much exactly the wrong strategy
> to maximise impact factor.
So, if Zootaxa went from
25% of all names to 100%, you're saying that
its impact factor would DECREASE?
Also, while I see your point
in terms of the status quo, are you not
among the people advocating that scientific
names that are digitally
automatically linked back to their original publications?
If this becomes common practice, will that
not mean that every time a
appears in print, it will *automatically* create a
trackable, quantifiable citation event? This is
more a matter of how
citations, and is *also* presumably subject to change as
technology evolves. I admit that I assume it
will change to our
advantage, and in
precisely this way. Do you not see this happening?
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises
in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville,
Moby Dick, Chap. 82
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