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

Dan Lahr dlahr at ib.usp.br
Tue Apr 14 06:55:51 CDT 2015


Hi all,

This discussion has brought back an issue that I often wondered about.

Assume that the authority placed after a name, besides being metadata that
objectively establishes unambiguous taxon identity, is ALSO a citation.
This should actually mean that taxonomic descriptions are in fact highly
cited.

Perhaps it is easier to start actually adding authority citations in the
references list.  This would certainly increase IF, not to mention it may
increase objectivity in some works. I am not entirely sure what the
down-side to doing this would be.

best,

dan

__________________________________
Daniel J. G. Lahr
PhD, Assist. Prof.
Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Office number: + 55 (11) 3091 0948
http://www.ib.usp.br/zoologia/lahr/


On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 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
>  > factor).
>  Consider Zootaxa, far and away the largest journal in
>  > zoological taxonomy. In 2013 approximately
>  a quarter of all published
>  > animal
>  names were published in Zootaxa, but its impact factor in
>  the
>  > same year was 1.060
>  > http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/support/impactfactor.htm
>  >
>  > 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
>  published get
>  automatically linked back to their original publications?
>
>  If this becomes common practice, will that
>  not mean that every time a
>  scientific name
>  appears in print, it will *automatically* create a
>  trackable, quantifiable citation event? This is
>  more a matter of how
>  people track
>  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?
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>  --
>
>  Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology
>       Entomology Research Museum
>  Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314
>     skype: dyanega
>  phone: (951)
>  827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>                http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>     "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
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
>  searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>  Celebrating 28 years of
>  Taxacom in 2015.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 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