Richard Pyle - Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution: Strategies for a Successful Web-Based Registry of Taxonomic Names

Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution:
Alternate Strategies for a Web-Based Registry
of Taxonomic Names
Richard Pyle
Bishop Museum
Honolulu

Registration and Publication
Registration
The process of entering a complete
record in the ZooBank registry.
Publication
ICZN-compliant published works, as
defined in Chapter 3 (Arts. 7-9) of the 4th
Edition of the ICZN Code.
Available Name (Availability)
A scientific name applied to an animal
taxon that conforms to the provisions of
the ICZN Code of nomenclature.

Registration and Publication
The “Three Scenarios”
Scenario #1
(Publication + Registration) = Availability
Scenario #2
Registration = Availability
Scenario #3
Registration = Publication = Availability
- ZooBank Technical Article, pp. 3-5
- ZooBank Technical Article, pp. 5-9
- Doug Yanega Post to ZooBank List, 22 Sep 2005

Scenario #1:
Summary
• To be available, names & acts must both
be published in accordance with
existing Code rules, and be registered
• Registration can take place either
before publication, or after publication
• If before or within 2 years after, date of
availability is publication date; if more
than 2 years after, date of availability is
registration date*

Procedure (Pre-Publication)
Journal/BookJournal/Book Taxon Author(s)Taxon Author(s) ICZN/ZooBankICZN/ZooBank
Submits online / hard copy form
to ICZN with details of
nomenclatural act
to ICZN with details of
nomenclatural act
Assigns GUID & returns form &
GUID to Author(s) with statement
of Code compliance
Assigns GUID & returns form &
GUID to Author(s) with statement
of Code compliance
Submits manuscript for
publication, with GUID and
copy of ICZN returned form
publication, with GUID and
copy of ICZN returned form
Publishes name/act with GUID
in full accordance with ICZN
Chapter 3 (Arts. 7-9)
Publishes name/act with GUID
in full accordance with ICZN
Chapter 3 (Arts. 7-9)
Sends copy of (relevant portion
of) published name/act &
reference to ICZN, with original
form and GUID
Sends copy of (relevant portion
of) published name/act &
reference to ICZN, with original
form and GUID Verifies publication, makes GUID
public with registration details
Verifies publication, makes GUID
public with registration details
Name is Available, using date of
Publication for priority purposes
Scenario #1:

Procedure (Post-Publication, within 2 years)
Journal/BookJournal/Book Author(s)/3rd
PartyAuthor(s)/3rd
Party ICZN/ZooBankICZN/ZooBank
Verifies publication and form for
Code compliance, assigns GUID
& makes GUID public with
registration details
Submits manuscript containing
name/act for publication
(as normal current practice)
Publishes name/act in full
accordance with ICZN Chapter
3 (Arts. 7-9)
3 (Arts. 7-9)
to ICZN with copy of (relevant
portion of) published name/act
& reference within 2 years of
publication date
publication date
Scenario #1:

Procedure (More than 2 years Post-Publication)
Journal/BookJournal/Book Author(s)/3rd
PartyAuthor(s)/3rd
Party ICZN/ZooBankICZN/ZooBank
3 (Arts. 7-9)
3 (Arts. 7-9)
publication date
publication date
Registration for priority purposes*
Registration for priority purposes*
Scenario #1:

Advantages
• Relatively small change to existing
taxonomic practice
• Fast implementation via Amendment to
the 4th
Edition Code
• Maintains implicit quality control via
traditional publication venues
• Perhaps broader acceptance by
taxonomic community?
Scenario #1:

Disadvantages (and Rebuttal)
• Somewhat complex procedure involving
asynchronous publication and
registration events, arbitrary time
periods affecting date of availability,
and petitions to the Commission in
certain special circumstances
• Not really that complicated, in the context of all
the existing complexities of the ICZN Code
Scenario #1:

• Somewhat ambiguous “gray zone” after
publication and before registration
when names & acts are “assumed” to
be available, even though technically
not available until registered
• Most authors will probably register new names
prior to publication, eliminating this problem
entirely
Scenario #1:

• Still suffers from all the complexities
and ambiguities associated with
traditional paper-publication entangled
with nomenclatural availability
• Not really much different from how it’s currently
done, so not an increase in complexity
Scenario #1:

• Requires (possibly extensive) increase
in active role of ICZN staff (and
associated costs) to process
registration requests and verify Code
compliance for issuance of GUIDs and
exposing registration details to public
• No rebuttal
Scenario #1:

Summary
• The process of registration itself is all
that is required for availability of new
names & acts
• Prior or subsequent publication through
traditional venues is encouraged, but is
not integral to nomenclatural availability
Scenario #2:

Journal/BookJournal/Book Taxon Author(s)Taxon Author(s) ICZN/ZooBankICZN/ZooBank
Registers name/act with
ZooBank registry service, or
submits hard-copy form with
relevant minimum details to
ICZN for registration
Registers name/act with
ZooBank registry service, or
submits hard-copy form with
relevant minimum details to
ICZN for registration
Once Registration entry is
complete, assigns GUID
automatically
Once Registration entry is
complete, assigns GUID
automatically
publication, with scientific
rationale and full-blown
description/details
publication, with scientific
rationale and full-blown
description/detailsPublishes manuscript if
passes peer-review process
(or not), with no implications
for nomenclatural availability
Publishes manuscript if
passes peer-review process
(or not), with no implications
Optionally sends copy/facsimile
of publication & reference to
ICZN, linked to relevant
Registration entry
Optionally sends copy/facsimile
of publication & reference to
ICZN, linked to relevant
Registration entry
Registration for priority purposes
Registration for priority purposes
Scenario #2:

Advantages
• Legalities of nomenclatural availability
and science of taxonomy are
disentangled from each other
• No ambiguity about date of Availability
• Existing complexities of nomenclatural
availability of published works are moot
• Only minor increase to active role of
ICZN staff (and associated costs)
Scenario #2:

• Fundamental change to the way
taxonomic names and acts are
established (eliminating Publication
process from act of nomenclatural
availability)
• Not from the perspective of the taxonomists
(virtually same as Scenario #1)
• Only change to technical legality of
nomenclatural availability, not necessarily
change to taxonomic practice
Scenario #2:

• More extensive changes likely needed
in the Code, such that it could probably
only be implemented in the 5th
Edition of
the ICZN Code (perhaps 5-10 years
away; well past 2008)
• So be it – it will probably take several years to
work out the details and demonstrate the
feasibility via a working voluntary registration
system anyway
Scenario #2:

• Taxonomists would lose their primary
benchmark for establishing professional
status (i.e., their CV’s would have fewer
publications listed)
• Professional status is established by publishing
articles on scientific taxonomy and classification,
which would continue exactly as before (only the
legalities of nomenclature would be dissociated
from publications – not the science of taxonomy)
Scenario #2:

• Journals might no longer publish
taxonomic descriptions if the articles no
longer carry the “prestige” of
establishing new names and acts in
accordance with ICZN rules
• Prestige in scientific publications comes from the
quality of the science content of the published
articles; not from fulfilling a legalistic technicality
Scenario #2:

• Elimination of quality control/peer
review from process of establishing
new names and nomenclatural acts
• No different from current situation or Scenario #1,
because the ICZN Code does not require peer
review or quality control (nor should it?)
• True, but the ICZN requirement for
publication de-facto forces most names
& acts through peer review
• No rebuttal
Scenario #2:

• Bad taxonomists (and non-taxonomists)
might abuse the system by registering
hundreds of bogus and unneeded
names, perhaps for unscrupulous
reasons (e.g., selling names for money)
• Again: no difference from current situation or
Scenario #1, because the ICZN Code does not
require peer review or quality control (e.g., self-
publishing)
Scenario #2:

• Lazy taxonomists might never get
around to publishing the full description
after the name is registered, potentially
creating many names without robust
taxonomic definitions
• Once again: no difference from current situation or
Scenario #1, because nothing is currently stopping
lazy taxonomists from self-publishing minimalist
descriptions that meet minimal Code requirements,
exactly as a Registration entry would
Scenario #2:

Summary
• The Registration Web site hosts a full-
blown, edited, peer-reviewed online
journal (like ZooTaxa) in which ALL
names and acts must be published
• The science of taxonomy becomes part
of the nomenclatural process (by Code)
• Submitted manuscripts are open to non-
anonymous review by any interested or
concerned taxonomist
Scenario #3:

Taxon Author(s)Taxon Author(s) ICZN/ZooBank/PublicationICZN/ZooBank/Publication
If ultimately accepted via the review process,
names/acts are deemed to be formally registered
If ultimately accepted via the review process,
names/acts are deemed to be formally registered
Manuscript is posted publicly, and open to non-
anonymous review by any interested taxonomist
(automated alert system notifies community of new
names/acts within their taxonomic groups of interest)
Manuscript is posted publicly, and open to non-
anonymous review by any interested taxonomist
(automated alert system notifies community of new
names/acts within their taxonomic groups of interest)
Submits manuscript for publication, with
scientific rationale and full-blown
description/details, to single online
journal administered by ZooBank
Submits manuscript for publication, with
scientific rationale and full-blown
description/details, to single online
journal administered by ZooBank
Revises manuscript, in accordance with
comments & criticisms received from
online reviewers
Revises manuscript, in accordance with
comments & criticisms received from
online reviewers
Acceptance for priority purposes
Acceptance for priority purposes
Scenario #3:

Advantages
• All taxonomic publications would
appear in a single venue (as is now
done for Bacteria), instead of scattered
across thousands of journals
• No longer the potential for one author to
“steal” another’s work by trying to
submit a plagiarized work to a journal
that has a faster turnaround time
Scenario #3:

Advantages
• All manuscripts are examined by a large
contingent of reviewers, instead of just
a handful, greatly improving the reviews
as well as democratizing the process
• The reviews are public, instead of
anonymous, so personal grudges or
biases of the reviewers are exposed to
scrutiny by the whole community
Scenario #3:

Advantages
• A dedicated nomenclatural journal
means that the review criteria will
explicitly address all necessary aspects
of code-compliance and proper
nomenclature
• All the other advantages of an online
review process (fast, iterative, open to
bidirectional feedback, etc.)
• NO COPYRIGHT ISSUES!!!
Scenario #3:

• Represents a MAJOR and fundamental
change to the way taxonomy is done,
both in terms of legalities of
nomenclature and for the science of
taxonomy
• With such major changes come major
advantages, and the trade-off is worth it
Scenario #3:

• Many taxonomic groups do not have
many (or even any) experts who would
serve as reviewers, and thus submitted
manuscripts may never receive peer-
review
• This problem is equally true for traditional
publication venues as well; but with only one
“official” taxonomic journal with potentially
thousands of regular participants, there is a better
chance of finding someone who is qualified to
review the manuscript
Scenario #3:

• More extensive changes likely needed
in the Code, such that it could probably
only be implemented in the 5th
Edition of
the ICZN Code (perhaps 5-10 years
away; well past 2008)
• So be it – it will probably take several years to
work out the details and demonstrate the
feasibility via a working voluntary registration
system anyway
Scenario #3:

• Such a system would impose a huge
burden on the taxonomic community to
provide peer reviews to 20,000+ new
names each year
• No more burden than already exists: for every
manuscript that is submitted and reviewed
through the official ZooBank online journal, one
fewer manuscript is submitted to a traditional
journal (i.e., no net increase in total number of
manuscripts to review)
Scenario #3:

• Existing journals that depend on
taxonomic descriptions and
nomenclatural acts to fill their pages
and maintain a subscriber base may be
driven out of business
• Since when is it the job of scientists to keep
journal publishers in business? Journals exist to
serve scientists, not the other way around
Scenario #3:

• The criteria for determining when a
submitted manuscript should be
deemed “accepted”, and when (and by
whom) will always be a subjective and
contentious issue
• Each manuscript would be assigned to an
impartial “referee” (whose specialty is outside the
particular taxon involved), who is fully versed in
the ICZN Code – serving the same role as a
journal editor
Scenario #3:

• The legalities of nomenclatural
availability and the subjective science
of taxonomy would, for the first time, be
formally coupled under Code rules
• And this is bad because....?
Scenario #3:
(i.e., some people feel that quality control/peer
review should be part of the Code requirements
for nomenclatural availability)

References Cited
http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/2005-
September/000003.html
ZooBank Technical Article:
Doug Yanega Post to ZooBank List, 22 Sep 2005:
http://www.iczn.org/new%20ZooBank.htm
Polaszek et al., 2005. ZooBank: the open-access
register for zoological taxonomy: Technical
Discussion Paper. ICZN Website. 10 pp.

Richard Pyle - Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution: Strategies for a Successful Web-Based Registry of Taxonomic Names

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Richard Pyle - Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution: Strategies for a Successful Web-Based Registry of Taxonomic Names

Similaire à Richard Pyle - Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution: Strategies for a Successful Web-Based Registry of Taxonomic Names (10)

Plus de ICZN

Plus de ICZN (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Richard Pyle - Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution: Strategies for a Successful Web-Based Registry of Taxonomic Names