Taxonomy has historically been relegated to the back alleys of the publishing world. In-house museum journals, obscure regional or specialty publications and even more obscure foreign language academy reports have hidden many species descriptions, revisions and monographs from the eyes of interested biologists. Not to say this is the only reason for current crisis in taxonomy (see Rodman & Cody 2003), but it certainly contributes. The hard work and insurmountable dedication of the taxonomist to furthering their group of interest should be rewarded and not locked away for the other 5 people in the world working on that genus of organism. Ecologists rely on species descriptions to compare the fauna they find in their studies with the published literature. The imperative nature of correct identifications of species cannot be understated in the medical, infectious disease, and parasitology literature. Without a doubt, quality taxonomic research is invaluable, in high demand and highly underappreciated by funding agencies and other scientists, even those who rely on such work (PEET not withstanding)
The lack of visibility of taxonomic research and the failure to make systematics as a whole relevant to the everyday lives of people has been a burden on the community. Much of the work is tedious yet vital to biodiversity studies, medicine and biotechnology. IrregardlessIrrespective of how one chooses to define a species, the species debate, the issue of perception is pervasive in this field. Many taxonomists are made to feel inferior to their colleagues doing experimental work who bring in much larger grants. The truth of the matter is that taxonomy is not a profitable venture for academic institutions why rely in part on the money they skim off of grants. It is a traditionally an inexpensive field, even with the use of molecular tools to aid in phylogenetic reconstructions. You can easily get by with a microscope, computer and digital camera. DNA extractions are relatively inexpensive and you can send the DNA product off to get analyzed elsewhere affordably, not needing to purchase expensive sequencing equipment.
Taxonomists need to improve the visibility and relevance of the field to ensure a continued, or at the least renewed, interest for the study of species, either from a theoretical, philosophical or practical framework. One way to contribute to increasing the visibility of taxonomic research is to publish in Open Access (OA). Several studies have shown there to be a citation advantage in OA papers (Eysenbach 2006). Zootaxa has taken the initiative in the taxonomy world by offering to publish any peer-reviewed taxonomic work free of charge for subscriber access and $20/page for OA. Other taxonomic "niche" journals exist with various financial differences, but have yet to attain the reputation of Zootaxa to my knowledge. But it is my own feeling that Zootaxa is only known well among other taxonomists, with the majority of other beneficiaries either unable to obtain articles because the bulk of the articles are locked behind the subscriber wall. This also has the effect of making less text available for search engines, such as Google Scholar.
The
Public Library of Science (PLoS) may help to alleviate part of the problems of visibility. They have grown to represent the standard in OA publishing and have a successful business model. Their success among scientists can measured by the fact that
between all their publications they are PLoS ONE alone is publishing on average 50 high quality papers per week. This is higher than journal, even the weekly big names. It is clear that their model is successful and scientists are actively seeking them out to publish their research. This is a clear argument in favor of wide dissemination (Chapter 3, Recommendation 8A of
the Code):
"Authors have a responsibility to ensure that new scientific names, nomenclatural acts, and information likely to affect nomenclature are made widely known. This responsibility is most easily discharged by publication in appropriate scientific journals or well-known monographic series and by ensuring that new names proposed by them are entered into the Zoological Record."
PLoS can make nomenclatural acts widely disseminated by providing them free of charge and out in open for all interested individuals with computer access. The steadily increasing popularity of PLoS ensures taxonomic work reaches a wide audience with a broad range of backgrounds. For instance, if you are working on parasites in humans and are describing a new species of muscle tissue boring pathogenic nematode you can tag the article as "medicine", "Nematoda", "New species", "Systematics", "Pathogen", etc. to reach audiences in non-parasitology fields.
Why would a taxonomist want to reach non-taxonomic areas of science? Citations are low in taxonomy. Species descriptions are read, the names are used in many publications, hopefully with author and year, but somehow the paper describing said species remains out of the list of references. This means indexing services like
PubMed and
Web of Science miss the uncited species descriptions in the tangled web of cross-reference. For example, Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830, should be the most cited paper in recorded history due to the amount of work on this model organism. So what of biodiversity studies with hundreds of species? This does pose a problem. Nowadays, there is supplementary online material and the citations could be referred there so long as they are properly indexed and the gods who fiddle around with such productivity metrics recognize these citations.
Another argument to get your work widely read is that universities aren't appearing to hire people to do basic taxonomy anymore. They need another hook, perhaps molecular evolution or ecology. Even museums are tending to hire individuals with outside specialties. I'm not sure where the future of taxonomy may lie, but larger questions need to be addressed than just what is out there. Taxonomic research helps in many areas of biological science. The more people that know of your work, the more opportunities may be to collaborate on new projects with different directions, making you a more viable applicant. Besides who wants to invest so much into something only to see it hidden away forever?
Are there any barriers to publishing a species description with PLoS? Yes, Chapter 3 of
the Code, Article 8.6 states:
<span class="title">"<span style="font-weight: bold">Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper</span>.</span> For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printi<p class='post-footer'>
original link:
<a href='http://Apiaceae.github.io/blog/2009/04/08/%E5%88%86%E7%B1%BB%E5%AD%A6%E5%87%86%E5%A4%87%E5%A5%BD%E5%8A%A0%E5%85%A5PLoS%E7%B3%BB%E7%BB%9F%E5%AD%A6%E5%90%97%EF%BC%9F/'>http://Apiaceae.github.io/blog/2009/04/08/%E5%88%86%E7%B1%BB%E5%AD%A6%E5%87%86%E5%A4%87%E5%A5%BD%E5%8A%A0%E5%85%A5PLoS%E7%B3%BB%E7%BB%9F%E5%AD%A6%E5%90%97%EF%BC%9F/</a><br/>
written by <a href='http://Apiaceae.github.io'>Hooker</a>
posted at <a href='http://Apiaceae.github.io'>http://Apiaceae.github.io</a>
</p>
The Biodiversity Center of Japan's Ministry of the Environment launched a citizen participation-based project called "IKIMONO-MIKKE - Biodiversity Observation by One Million People" from July,2008, and released a preliminary report concerning the summer 2008 on October 16, 2008. The program consists of two surveys: "IKIMONO-SHIRABE (I found it!)," in which citizens report the dates they identified three target species or natural phenomena selected for each season, and "Feel Warmer?," a survey to ask participants about the effects of global warming in their local area. As of October 14, 2008, the surveys had collected 8,233 and 1,966 reports, respectively.
"IKIMONO-SHIRABE" in the summer 2008 targeted three cicadas typically identified in the summer in Japan, Oncotympana maculaticollis, Meimuna opalifera, and Cryptotympana facialis, and participants recorded their first and last dates of chirping and associated changes. The results were compared with those of "Environmental Indicator Species," a survey conducted by the Center in 1995. Cryptotympana facialis, whose emergence is known to be more temperature-dependent than other two cicadas, tended to begin chirping at an earlier date in three prefectures where many reports were made. However, as the date of first chirping was delayed in some other prefectures, further detailed analysis will be made using data from smaller segments such as cities and towns.
The "Feel Warmer?" survey indicated that 93 percent of respondents recognized signs of global warming. Many noticed the changes in the bloom date of cherry blossoms and/or Japanese silver grass, both of which are closely associated with Japanese seasonal events including school entrance ceremonies and moon-viewing. The "IKIMONO-MIKKE" program is planned to be held each season.
原文链接:http://www.japanfs.org/en/pages/028673.html
BioNET is an international not-for-profit initiative dedicated to promoting taxonomy, especially in the biodiversity rich but economically poorer countries of the world. Working via local partnerships (LOOPs), BioNET strives to provide a forum for collaboration that is equally open to all taxonomists and to the other users of taxonomy. Working with partners locally and internationally, our work contributes to raising awareness of the importance of taxonomy to society, building and sharing of capacity, and meeting taxonomic needs via innovative tools and approaches.
Our affiliated partnerships are uniquely positioned to identify and help meet local taxonomic needs relating to sustainable development and conservation, in particular needs relating to the Millennium Development Goals and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity.
主页网址:http://www.bionet-intl.org/opencms/opencms/whoWeAre