An index to evaluate the quality of taxonomic publications

Abstract

The number of citations is not an adequate measure of taxonomic quality, which is a view that is shared with other scientific disciplines (Seglen1997; Valdecasas et al. 2000; Walter et al. 2003). A recent editorial in Nature claims that “... citations are an unreliable measure of importance" (Anon. 2010: 850) and uses two chemistry papers as an example. The first paper was cited 182 times in the same period that the other paper was cited only 13 times. However, the latter paper is recognized as ‘outstanding’ by the experts from the American Chemical Society, which would not be revealed by the arbitrary counting of citations. Similar examples have evoked critical editorial comments in high-impact journals. In the context of a possible future use of the Impact Factor (IF), the editor of EMBO Reports states:

Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again

“…Not to mention that these metrics have little relevance to taxonomy anyway (e.g. Krell, ; Ellis, ; see especially Boero, ; Valdecasas, for illuminating comments on this topic). Impact factors are also wielded as means of devaluing traditional museum publications, monographs, and other journals that represent important outlets for publication in taxonomy—as more “applied” journals gradually increase their impact factors, less applied, taxonomy‐friendly journals that increase their impact factors at a slower rate become demoted to lower echelons of ranking lists.…”

The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis

“…Taxonomists are also highly critical of the use of citations for evaluative purposes (Croft, ; Krell, ; Valdescasas, ). The problem is that although taxonomy is basic to biology, taxonomists are seldom cited although their work “underpins … diverse areas of biological inquiry” (Calver, , p. 2).…”

<strong>“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice”</strong>

“…In this scenario, ambiguous, unnecessary or premature changes are frequently motivated by some of the following factors: (1) the notion that taxonomic changes potentially yield a considerable number of citations, consequently raising the impact factor of the journals that publish them, a metric that was corrupted from its original purpose (to measure the quality of journals) and is currently applied to evaluate scientists (Valdecasas 2011;Alberts 2013); (2) the misconceived idea that taxonomy disregards the need for specialists (Godfray 2007; for a counter argument see Carvalho et al 2007Carvalho et al , 2013; (3) the malpractices of "taxonomic piracy", which destabilizes taxonomy and generates a myriad of problems (Oliver & Lee 2010;Kaiser et al 2013); (4) the disorderly usage of "grey nomenclature", which generally precludes objective comparisons across studies and whose meanings (in taxonomic grounds) are often obscure, leading to ambiguous interpretations concerning their applications (Minelli 2017); (5) a misconception regarding the meaning of related, but distinct, terms such as taxonomy and nomenclature-the former associated with hypotheses based on data leading to the discovery, delimitation and establishment of taxa relationships, while the latter corresponds to a set of rules regarding names (the Code), which is applicable under any taxonomic paradigm (Dubois 2008;Pyle & Michel 2008). Due to the reasons above, this huge load of changes has been the target of some debates concerning its utility and necessity, as well as the best practices and malpractices in taxonomic studies (e.g., Burbrink et al 2007;Carvalho et al 2013;Hedges 2013;Kaiser et al 2013;Vences et al 2013;Minelli 2017).…”