[Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation

Donat Agosti agosti at amnh.org
Sat Mar 7 07:10:39 CST 2020


I am writing grant proposals, and following the use of the data we liberate, seem to make a global constituency happy (see eg the map here: http://plazi.org/news/beitrag/on-open-science/f96d9b178375762df0371c547a48a523/.)
Thanks for painting a picture of somebody that deals with $trillions: I am happy of any 1$, 1K$, 1m$ at best we together (not me alone) can get, collaborations we can forge to use synergisms to discover known biodiversity and enable increasing rates of charting the global biodiversity.

Donat

From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 7:49 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
Cc: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>; KD Dijkstra <kd.dijkstra at naturalis.nl>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation

EXTERNAL SENDER

Donat said "... more money will be diverted for charting and understanding global biodiversity"

So it appears that Donat is a good example of one of the priviliged few who wants to make science slightly more convenient for himself and his colleagues, by way of diverting what in the long run will be $trillions away from healthcare, welfare, etc., thereby helping to keep much of the world locked in poverty.

On Friday, 6 March 2020, 08:54:19 am UTC, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org<mailto:agosti at amnh.org>> wrote:



A comment to open science.



The situation has changed regarding open access and open science. The EU fully requires open access to anything they fund. No funds are awarded to any institution that will not accept a commitment to open access. Many of our institutions signed up the Bouchout Declaration on Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management and open access is for example a central part of the development of DiSSCo<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dissco.eu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596102475&sdata=3V8H3oyRsIlqUQr8rklZU%2B1RWaA8ozgUolzHt2NOA8E%3D&reserved=0> – the Distributed System of Scientific Collections in Europe.



Many of our science agencies signed up on DORA<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsfdora.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596102475&sdata=KuoqP%2BbIZ81hwcNaKzs95fQdK%2BrnWQMbZgVVQKfHRY8%3D&reserved=0>, the San Francisco declaration on alternative metrics, and increasingly even disregard citation indexes to evaluate scientists and proposals.



It is very obvious, that open access opens a complete new door to the way we do science. It saves an enormous amount of time to access cited works, literature to specimens. It enables large studies that have not been possible before.

It improves our science, because many eyes have suddenly access to the data, data can be analyzed in context, including links to any cited material, that not has been possible.

In fact, it should be our ambition and goal that any publication is accessible through PubMed, BHL, BLR or GBIF or a similar global infrastructure, and the data therein is citable, such as figures, taxonomic treatments or materials cited.



This data can and is reused, see eg the last published EJT<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.5852%2Fejt.2020.609&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596102475&sdata=ibTQswTh9XFUdldWBiFAlfPowtjN7qUbouJCy84mBwc%3D&reserved=0>: It is not only accessible as PDF, but in various  formats in the Biodiversity Literature Repository<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzenodo.org%2Frecord%2F3697467&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596112471&sdata=bqkN5Msqz%2FzKHVPm8WPTH1oqGYahqqzd2Vmp9ipKIU8%3D&reserved=0>, in TreatmentBank<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftb.plazi.org%2FGgServer%2Fsummary%2F3467FF82FF924266E73ED401FF92DC0B&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596112471&sdata=Qna2gKKJXiyU5YZNHU337pwHfQAKF4Gcvhm8NschXDY%3D&reserved=0> or GBIF<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gbif.org%2Fdataset%2Fc8b5a550-0994-4b37-9de2-82ed07a64a99&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596122463&sdata=AGfWJn%2BFlWrPxAkNWPlNd63h1wer4h3V7g9aYAF3OJ8%3D&reserved=0>. The types<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gbif.org%2Foccurrence%2Fsearch%3Fdataset_key%3Dc8b5a550-0994-4b37-9de2-82ed07a64a99%26type_status%3DHOLOTYPE&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596122463&sdata=mX0%2FGwHW5JtuBt%2Buyhhg1HqWZqlFTBiHtvQDkJgnfWQ%3D&reserved=0> are accessible, images<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Focellus.punkish.org%2Fimages.html%3Fq%3D%252210.5852%2Fejt.2020.609%2522%26size%3D30%26page%3D1%26communities%3Dbiosyslit&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596132461&sdata=25n2vy9aDQF8dYXTT9YGKzLlpfXMOSgmHWiiOxfOAWU%3D&reserved=0> are accessible to anybody anywhere at any time in the world. The scientists contribution is immediately accessible through services like the Bloodhound tracker<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbloodhound-tracker.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596132461&sdata=fBcogZvFIl2ldm7t0pkMcmd5s%2FJR0uLF4bilImEtPdU%3D&reserved=0>, or it can be reused in knowledge systems like openbiodiv<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fopenbiodiv.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596142447&sdata=02Q3jSs%2FrIWTL4SHKDARo4roBASgWK%2FX0zdBLjUbV9Q%3D&reserved=0> or Wikidata. And all the access points lead always back to the source publication.



The only stumbling block for most of the literature is that we even don't know that a new species has been described, even worse, to a large extent do we not know what we know at all. This is a major reason for an utterly out of data Catalogue of Life, a broken link system from a taxonomic name to the taxonomic treatment, the referenced specimens, sequences, that is the door to the literature better knowledge about the species.



Open science in the digital internet era is a huge benefit to our science, allows spreading its knowledge. This is what we want, we need and are obliged to do in the age of drastic disappearing biodiversity.



Open science is an advantage to science. It needs to be underpinned with an adequate infrastructure. It needs publishers that can publish in a semantic enhanced way so that the data is immediately reusable. It needs functional services such as IPNI, Zoobank, Catalogue of Life, Biodiversity Literature Repository, BHL, GBIF, or DiSSCo or idigBio or large scale sequencing projects.



Open science is exactly what we need. We want to be able to critically review research results, such as what is at the base of the description of a new species: Which specimens, which characters, what kind of sequence or other data. We want to be able to understand the growth of data related to a taxon by making use of the citations of previous literature. Open science and its tools allow this.



Open science is not a threat or stupid, it makes your work visible, it raises the profile of taxonomy by allowing linking between specimens, sequences, taxonomic names and research results.



Open science will help us to overcome to logjam we have to create a Catalogue of Life with all the automation that is possible, curatorial tools to correct possible errors in the processing. It thus will help us to liberate us out of this incredible awkward situation that we do now know what we know because we have not learned how to publish properly nor deal with the daily increasing number of publication adding the estimated 500 Million pages of literature of biodiversity, that, among others, encompasses the entire catalogue of life.



Funding for open science does not compete with our taxonomic research funds. Rather the opposite, if we can show that what vibrant and relevant field we work in, more money will be diverted for charting and understanding global biodiversity.



For the first time since Linnaeus, we have the chance to be able to build a system that provides access to all the knowledge we haven, similar to the Systema Naturae at his time.



Open science also means collaboration, and this is happening at grand scale, not least because our community can compete against science projects from other domains and attract funding, because we are devoted to open access, make our data accessible to anybody anywhere at anytime.



Finally, it increases dramatically access from any place where biodiversity disappears the fastest: Any student, scientist or conservationist has access too, not just we in the North.



Together we are now building an incredible infrastructure – our infrastructure owned by the scientists, run by scientists for the scientists. An open infrastructure to anybody to preserve the worlds biodiversity to create innovations that through taxes enabling the science foundations or philanthropic Funds  spend money on its development, with an emphasis on generating new and recovering existing knowledge about our biodiversity. An infrastructure that allows to document and give credit to each of the scientists contribution.



Cheers

Donat







-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> On Behalf Of KD Dijkstra via Taxacom
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>
Cc: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>; Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com<mailto:biotemail at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation



EXTERNAL SENDER





Hi,



I think no genuine scientist opposes “open science”. But people are right to be skeptical if “science” embraces “openness” after pushing for “closedness” for decades. More means to share knowledge are great, but only make sense if the field isn’t designed to be fundamentally competitive. If institutes need large grants to stay afloat and “high ranking” papers are the ticket to getting them, peer review of manuscripts and applications will continue to be an exercise in tearing each other down, for example. So it’s hard to have truly “open science” as long as impact factors determine everything, or as long as research consortia are consistently favored over individual brilliance.



Personally, I feel more “open” scientists aren’t always encouraged.

Taxonomy and natural history are very public sciences, benefitting non-academics directly and disproportionately. The fundamental problem there is that funders (and indeed most scientists) don’t appreciate the difference between information (i.e. units of hard data) and expertise (that fuzzy familiarity with a topic). Organizations and institutes, for example, happily invest in infrastructure to collate species records, because from there it seems to work by itself. They invest much less in improving or even stimulating those data, e.g. with taxonomic works like field guides that increase the quality of what comes in, or by creating capacity to vet those data. And why would they? Quantitatively the infrastructure is already successful, with data rushing in, and only a few specialists can judge the actual quality, most of whom are so passionate they’ll do it (almost) for free.



So the second problem is that we can’t dream of “open science” as long as lucrative research that keeps scientists ensconced in their “ivory towers”

is favored. Genomics and big data analysis, for example, may be very relevant scientifically, or even benefit mankind as a whole, but for the average individual it’s not especially engaging or enlightening. If we want science to be “open”, we must invest in those that are already close to the public.



Summarizing, seeing “open science” as mainly an infrastructural challenge in the current academic climate has two main drawbacks. Firstly, the risk of any investment being captured by established interests is great, as Stephen put forward. Secondly, it detracts from the actual solution, which is to invest in “open scientists”, including communicative specialists with accessible interests.



Cheers, KD



_________________________________________

*KD (Klaas-Douwe) B Dijkstra*

See my new website! kddijkstra.nl

key appearances and publications

<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434831676&sdata=Xk90OHG90KwhkTlzd1cgw0HLOzO4wRTEKkCrNORHPTo%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596142447&sdata=aqX6%2Bw0ENxy5GZ0zbIapSB7SbriDWVJYMKPiOlT3t4Y%3D&reserved=0>>

my work <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome%2Fmy-work&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434831676&sdata=xUGhafOaixnrc3PzGveqcOiOhF1Yxb9TkY9Aj%2B82Mh8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome%2Fmy-work&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596152446&sdata=eA4ZVooxetuhBnn28Oh17f1TSsY9TwGfERRh9RGZvO4%3D&reserved=0>> and my species <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome%2Fmy-species&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=zB4ichCqdZNRAt5cyJlD8BGH5MI1PvagXlK2Sn0Bvhw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fkddijkstra%2Fhome%2Fmy-species&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596152446&sdata=CIxXMcXu4H2SUXu8CmYgSgaJLbVC1tzuiqeT6%2BmRSLU%3D&reserved=0>>

African Dragonflies and Damselflies Online <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faddo.adu.org.za%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=beqs3x6Vsx6ch0TxYPL3D%2BRcHqOsinj8M7U%2BfQ7pg5M%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faddo.adu.org.za%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596162443&sdata=6beZGXC9JQ8drb6gS2myuD2dpPPVYWQlgf6w36cEVaA%3D&reserved=0>>





On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 01:03, Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> wrote:



>  Carlos,I am calm, I'm just saying it as it is. What you describe is

> an idealistic vision of how things might pan out, but I strongly

> suspect that the way things actually pan out will be determined by the power of the $.

> Publishers aren't going to give up their current profit margins

> without a fight, and if they can negotiate a mutually profitable deal

> with publicly funded research institutions to secure a bigger share of

> the public purse, then that is by far the most likely outcome. There

> is already a lot of "spin", putting this in terms of "public good",

> i.e. "free" access by the public to publicly funded research, when it

> is nothing of the sort!Cheers, Stephen

>     On Wednesday, 4 March 2020, 09:37:08 pm UTC, Carlos Alberto

> Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com<mailto:biotemail at gmail.com>> wrote:

>

>  Hi Stephen,What you have not understood is that:1) by shifting from

> for-profit OA private publishing to non-profit OA academic publishing

> we could cut OA expenses down by up to 1/3 of the current expenses

> and2) use those funds to actually produce more OA research or to

> maintain the actual level while investing more on platform

> development.Calm down, drink some ice tea and read my emails again.

> You will see that I already explained 1 and 2. Of course that no

> technology can help us against greed. That's why we have to fight it,

> no matter if it comes from private publishers, from institutions or from unscrupulous scientists or managerial staff.

> Cheers,Carlos

> Carlos A. Martínez MuñozZoological Museum, Biodiversity UnitFI-20014

> University of TurkuFinlandResearchGate profileMyriapod Morphology and

> Evolution

>

>

>

> El mié., 4 mar. 2020 a las 22:16, Stephen Thorpe (<

> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>) escribió:

>

>  "In the context of pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges,"

> diverting $billions of public funds into OA/OS initiatives, so as to

> boost the profits of research institutions working with public money,

> is clearly one of the biggest con jobs of the 21st Century. It has to

> result in

> either: (1) less research being done with the same amount of public

> funding; or(2) more public funding being diverted to science to

> maintain the same level of research, funding which cannot therefore be

> spent on "pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges".

> Witness the subterfuges used by the wealthy half (third, quarter?) of

> humanity to further their own interests at the expense of the

> interests of "the outgroup"...

> Stephen

>     On Wednesday, 4 March 2020, 10:41:59 am UTC, Carlos Alberto

> Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> wrote:

>

>  Dear Taxacomers,

> Please note that the questionnaire for inputs into the development of

> the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation is available online here (

>

> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.u

> nesco.org%2Fnews%2Funesco-launches-global-consultation-develop-standar

> d-setting-instrument-open-science&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org

> %7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76

> %7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=cN6Ir6h4lUzA9M5lEZEFw259gxnMUX

> 997QBTAK%2FADXI%3D&reserved=0

> )

> and here (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FN958HFW&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=IAbnu7tcTYeikL%2FuLLUBrASK5uTPE6QYyyVWhCza3XI%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FN958HFW&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596162443&sdata=juqHNRUoz8vsSBZ%2BC276KVWDvIrFnz%2FxHTmcMQH7s7A%3D&reserved=0>).

>

> In the context of pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges,

> sustainable and innovative solutions must be supported by an

> efficient, transparent and vibrant scientific effort - not only

> stemming from the scientific community, but from the whole society.

> Open Science embodies the need to transform and democratize the entire

> scientific process to ensure that science truly drives and enables the

> achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for the benefits of all.

>

> Driven by unprecedented advances in our digital world, the transition

> to Open Science allows scientific information, data and outputs to be

> more widely accessible (Open Access) and more reliably harnessed (Open

> Data) with the active engagement of all relevant stakeholders (Open to Society).

> However, in the fragmented scientific and policy environment, a global

> understanding of the meaning, opportunities and challenges of Open

> Science is still missing.

>

> UNESCO, as the United Nations Agency with a mandate for Science, is

> the legitimate global organization enabled to build a coherent vision

> of Open Science and a shared set of overarching principles and shared

> values. That is why, at the 40th session of UNESCO’s General

> Conference, 193 Member States tasked the Organization with the

> development of an international standard-setting instrument on Open

> Science in the form of a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.

>

> UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science will be prepared through a

> regionally balanced, multistakeholder, inclusive and transparent consultation process.

> This process is guided by an Open Science Advisory Committee and is

> expected to lead to the adoption of the Recommendation by UNESCO

> Member States in 2021.

>

> As UNESCO launches its consultation process on Open Science, an online

> survey is designed to conduct inputs from all the regions and the

> interested stakeholders, about aspects, benefits and challenges of

> Open Science across the globe.

>

> All Open Science stakeholders, including scientists and scientific

> institutes, science publishers, science policy makers etc., are

> encouraged to participate and  to share their insights trough a global

> survey

> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww

> .surveymonkey.com%2Fr%2FN958HFW&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=IAbnu7tcTYeikL%2FuLLUBrASK5uTPE6QYyyVWhCza3XI%3D&reserved=0>. In addition, you can help the collection of a broader perspective on Open Science by sharing this survey among your network.

>

> The questionnaire is also available for download <

> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.u

> nesco.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fquestionnaire_unesco_open_scienc

> e.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c

> 0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C63718999843484166

> 7&sdata=%2FOWxUxyxJnrZYO1F2%2Fh62TIkqZNAyIrY%2FEq205S1hlo%3D&r

> eserved=0

> >.

> It can be filled offline and sent to us by email at:

> openscience at unesco.org<mailto:openscience at unesco.org>

> (link sends e-mail) <openscience at unesco.org<mailto:openscience at unesco.org>>.

>

> I wonder if some day we will pair the Codes of Nomenclature with Open

> Science and mandate that all new names and nomenclatural acts, to be

> available, have to be published open access. Names form the basis of

> our biodiversity informatics services and they shouldn't continue to

> be born in paywalled publications. We are the keepers of scientific

> names and taxon descriptions. We should strive for them to be accessible.

> Regards,

>

> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz

> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit

> FI-20014 University of Turku

> Finland

> ResearchGate profile

> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww

> .researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data=02%7C01%7

> Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b949

> 6883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637189998434841667&sdata=K%2Fpt95trzT

> %2Fz%2FWl7hPFtoEs9jmzYLxZhpnGV%2BhwCIuc%3D&reserved=0>

> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution

> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww

> .facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%

> 40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb3

> 4586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637189998434841667&sdata=t3KMR1wbvPWdyclrVhei

> ni62TkIV%2Fr5ITH2w1teDL9Q%3D&reserved=0>

> _______________________________________________

> Taxacom Mailing List

>

> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:

> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm

> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0

> 1%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b

> 9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=xgkRK%2BA

> jWMM4BbYYaac8pNx7UChClUVlNezA%2FiNrEpk%3D&reserved=0

> You can reach the person managing the list at:

> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:

> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac

> om.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1

> c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C6371899

> 98434841667&sdata=sa2wf%2B6JBAC7n9%2B3hl9hmEPPhlMRF%2F0kN%2FC2aKb%

> 2Bjk8%3D&reserved=0

>

> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Taxacom Mailing List

>

> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:

> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailm

> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C0

> 1%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b

> 9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=xgkRK%2BA

> jWMM4BbYYaac8pNx7UChClUVlNezA%2FiNrEpk%3D&reserved=0

> You can reach the person managing the list at:

> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:

> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxac

> om.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1

> c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C6371899

> 98434841667&sdata=sa2wf%2B6JBAC7n9%2B3hl9hmEPPhlMRF%2F0kN%2FC2aKb%

> 2Bjk8%3D&reserved=0

>

> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.

>

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List



Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434841667&sdata=xgkRK%2BAjWMM4BbYYaac8pNx7UChClUVlNezA%2FiNrEpk%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596172437&sdata=jkE3ejLwIuHMGmM2Yd7z2Nuy2QXGaZ7eqAl5nGe%2FNTQ%3D&reserved=0>

You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7Cd0229ac2f1234c1c857308d7c0ed746b%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C1%7C637189998434851662&sdata=1jNPztCvkGp1ktzBKl1UphGtXKF%2F23kF17QAllS%2B4iQ%3D&reserved=0<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C3d14c9217e394a12872108d7c1ff11d3%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637191173596172437&sdata=eHj8NfQh1jiaPLqaw2fzXcT0ewTE3vYKYu2Twrr0TBg%3D&reserved=0>



Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list