Print

Print


I see in other places petitions to get an impact factor reinstated for
Zootaxa.

I've not been a fan of the impact factor concept because all it seems to do
is measure *popularity of research topics/journals*, but for some reason
administrators use it as a *measure of scientific quality of individual
papers/ worth of individual authors*. Two very different things.

Imagine all the journals in the world laid out in an x, y grid. Plot their
impact factor on the z access. Now fly over the landscape. Vast quantities
of the impact factor universe will be flat or nearly so. No matter what you
do, or how well you do it, if you work in most parts of the research
landscape, you'll never be able to have an impact over a certain number.
It's like being a mountain climber in Kansas. No matter how hard you try,
you have no hope of out-climbing someone at the bottom of a hill
in Denver.

If impact factor doesn't work for the biggest taxonomic journal in the
world, wouldn't this be a good time to part ways with it? Either
specifically state "Impact Factor as calculated by xyz can not be
appropriately applied to taxonomic literature.", or if we have to have a
number, let the taxonomy world come up with their own internal measure of
"impact". It might be calculated by number of new species described, number
of revisions, number of monographs, turn around time, rejection rate, and
cost.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Mike



On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 5:21 PM Vinton Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the posting.  Self-citation is almost inevitable in the
> smallish expert groups we work among, not to mention the small interlocking
> directorates of specialists who, for lack of external expertise, end up
> reviewing each other's submissions inordinately often.  It not entirely
> desirable, but the only alternatives would be to 1) omit or limit citation
> of relevant work just because one or more of the authors were party to it,
> or 2) to engage less knowledgeable reviewers because the deep expertise in
> a lot of groups is so concentrated. The issue for publications like Zootaxa
> is not analogous to more general molecular work, where a lot of the
> reviewing involves assessment of the application of lab techniques or data
> analysis that are applied over broad areas of investigation.  In such
> broader, less taxonomically oriented work, the impetus for self-citation is
> smaller and the pool of expert reviewers larger.
>
> I encourage anybody in a position to bring pressure to bear in favor of
> keeping Zootaxa on the list to do so (and to do the same for any analogous
> journals that might be in danger of the same fate).
>
> Vinton
>
> Vinton Thompson, PhD
> Research Associate
> Division of Invertebrate Zoology
> American Museum of Natural History
> Central Park West at 79th Street
> New York, NY 10024, USA
> Telephone: 917-443-1680
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Entomological Collections Network Listserve <[log in to unmask]>
> On Behalf Of Michael Wilson
> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 11:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Fw: Zootaxa removed from Web of Science Impact Factors?
>
> Colleagues
>
>
> This information appears to be circulating among some groups- but I have
> not been aware of it for insects yet.  Lacking a citation index would
> clearly adversely affect many authors.
>
> But I was unsure if Clarivate Web of Science was the only provider of an
> Impact Factor.
>
> Mike Wilson
> National Museum of Wales
>
>
> From: Annelida <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Vasily Radashevsky
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 03 July 2020 09:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Zootaxa and SCI
>
> Absolutely agree with Dani!
>
> With colleagues of mine from the National Scientific Center of Marine
> Biology, Russia Academy of Sciences, we have already discussed the
> situation around Zootaxa and all agreed to send a letter to the Clarivate
> Analytics asking to bring back Zootaxa to the JCR report.
>
> Self citation by a taxonomic journal shows its extreme popularity among
> taxonomy experts and high quality of its production, which were
> misinterpreted by the Clarivate Analytics as imperfection.
>
> Vasily Radashevsky
>
>
> From: Annelida [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Martin
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 10:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Zootaxa and SCI
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I have recently been informed that Crarivate has eliminated Zootaxa from
> their 2019 Web of Science Journal Impact Factor list. I think that such a
> decision could be a serious weakness for the scientific institutions
> keeping high profiles in taxonomy and biodiversity studies, which count on
> journals like Zootaxa for their evaluations, as well as for the career
> assessment of those researchers (either well-stablished or young) that are
> still interested in (or will be attracted to) describe and communicate to
> the scientific community, and thus the whole society, the amazing still
> unknown biodiversity of our world. I must say, like most of us.
>
> It seems that the reason is the high number of self-citations. However, I
> think that we all understand that self-citations are a direct consequence
> of publishing (fast and keeping high quality) papers containing
> descriptions of new species and many other taxonomic/nomenclatural acts,
> combined with the reduced number of journals accepting this kind of
> studies. Based on data from Zoological Records on the journals containing
> taxonomic papers, Zootaxa is in the top by large as it includes more than
> 25% of the new taxa described from 2015 to date.
>
> Journal title
>
> New taxa
>
> Zootaxa
>
> 24722
>
> 26.57%
>
> Zookeys
>
> 5682
>
> 6.11%
>
> European Journal of Taxonomy
>
> 1686
>
> 1.81%
>
> Linzer Biologische Beitraege
>
> 1374
>
> 1.48%
>
> Cretaceous Research
>
> 1347
>
> 1.45%
>
> Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
>
> 981
>
> 1.05%
>
> Insecta Mundi
>
> 964
>
> 1.04%
>
> Paleontological Journal
>
> 939
>
> 1.01%
>
> Journal of Systematic Palaeontology
>
> 791
>
> 0.85%
>
> Systematic and Applied Acarology
>
> 744
>
> 0.80%
>
>
> We think that this situation merits to act some way and, together with
> some colleagues, we have decided to write to Clarivate to explain this
> situation and to ask them to include again Zootaza in the Journal Impact
> Factor list. If you agree we our arguments, maybe you will also consider to
> joint this initiative and to distribute this message within your colleagues.
>
> I am sorry for this long message, but I think this is just another brick
> whose disappearance will directly affect the taxonomic research foundations.
>
> Wormly,
>
> Dani.
>
> [??????? ?????? ????????????.]
>
> Daniel Martin
>
> Scientific Researcher - Head of Department
>
> Department of Marine Ecology,
> Centre d'Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CEAB-CSIC)
>
> p:
>
> 972336101  m: 636046003
>
> f:
>
> 972337806
>
> a:
>
> Carrer d'accés a la Cala Sant Francesc 14, 17300 Blanes, Catalunya, Spain
>
> w:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ceab.csic.es_personal_daniel-2Dmartin-2Dsintes_&d=DwIFAw&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=-lUMCZ4RK28H4qvcd3vmEBuyVJHHG0OpDzFenR9wX-A&m=jMfjLLovnuajTp21AQwjM03-2dg0W-cAUWj35qWzMW0&s=scMKwvuZSRQTQNgzPlU-UCQyJclcp1LmGGVP4DM1v7o&e=
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ceab.csic.es_personal_daniel-2Dmartin-2Dsintes_&d=DwMFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=kneITHchODUMRJ0DW9QZxjridSnSzPFEu0iz0NAiWEY&m=7WZ_lFrON2njsEYn43D6bl5a4GiqDO0ccmI8tomC92w&s=K-SjCT8QDb9dFZA4tMR4S94DM_Kyo7wElxHPVksZUTc&e=>
> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> [??????? ?????? ????????????.]<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_poliquetdani&d=DwMFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=kneITHchODUMRJ0DW9QZxjridSnSzPFEu0iz0NAiWEY&m=7WZ_lFrON2njsEYn43D6bl5a4GiqDO0ccmI8tomC92w&s=55qjNHU8QMFzGCAVoFqsKbt0gXXZc89YlP6cQ9dtSJE&e=>
> [??????? ?????? ????????????.] <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_poliquetdani&d=DwMFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=kneITHchODUMRJ0DW9QZxjridSnSzPFEu0iz0NAiWEY&m=7WZ_lFrON2njsEYn43D6bl5a4GiqDO0ccmI8tomC92w&s=br5_IH5-e72set_nlN6ofVtkVN5qGY0_oTSb_TqDeSc&e=
> >
>
>
>
>
> [??????? ?????? ????????????. EUROMARINE]<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.euromarinenetwork.eu&d=DwMFaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=kneITHchODUMRJ0DW9QZxjridSnSzPFEu0iz0NAiWEY&m=7WZ_lFrON2njsEYn43D6bl5a4GiqDO0ccmI8tomC92w&s=15CkwaANrah3PCGfsfJ7lEFySatquQWiQw2s77MF2Nk&e=
> >
>
>
>
> YMWADIAD
> Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg, ac yn sicrhau y byddwn
> yn cyfathrebu â chi yn eich iaith ddewisol, boed yn Gymraeg, Saesneg neu'r
> ddwy, dim ond i chi ein hysbysu. Ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn peri oedi.
> Mae pob neges e-bost a anfonir at neu gan Amgueddfa Cymru yn cael ei
> sganio gan systemau diogelwch awtomatig. Sganiwyd y neges hon am firysau
> cyn ei hanfon, ond dylech hefyd wirio bod y neges, a phob atodiad ynddi, yn
> rhydd o firysau cyn ei defnyddio. Nid ydym yn derbyn cyfrifoldeb am unrhyw
> golled neu ddifrod o ganlyniad i agor y neges neu unrhyw atodiadau. Gall y
> neges hon ac unrhyw ffeiliau a atodir ynddi gynnwys gwybodaeth gyfrinachol
> a fwriadwyd ar gyfer y derbynnydd yn unig. Os ydych chi wedi derbyn y neges
> trwy gamgymeriad, hysbyswch ni a dileu'r neges. Safbwyntiau personol yr
> awdur a fynegir yn y neges hon, ac nid ydynt o reidrwydd yn cynrychioli
> safbwyntiau Amgueddfa Cymru. Nid ydym yn derbyn cyfrifoldeb am unrhyw
> wallau, llygredd neu esgeulustod a allai godi wrth drosglwyddo'r neges hon.
>
> DISCLAIMER
> We welcome correspondence in Welsh and English, and we will ensure that we
> communicate with you in the language of your choice, whether that's
> English, Welsh or both if you let us know which you prefer. Corresponding
> in Welsh will not lead to any delay.
> E-mail to and from Amgueddfa Cymru is scanned by automated security
> systems. This message was scanned for viruses before transmission, but you
> should also satisfy yourself that the message, and all attachments, are
> virus-free before use. We can accept no responsibility for any loss or
> damage that might arise from opening the message or any attachments. This
> message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
> information intended only for the recipient. If you receive the message by
> mistake please inform us and delete it. The views expressed in this message
> are the personal views of the author and may not necessarily represent
> those of Amgueddfa Cymru. We accept no liability for any errors, corruption
> or omissions that might arise in transmission of this message.
>
> --
>  Scanned by FuseMail.
>


-- 
Michael L. Ferro
Collection Manager, Clemson University Arthropod Collection (CUAC)
Dept. of Plant and Environmental Sciences
277 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0310
OFFICE: 307 Long Hall
[log in to unmask] (preferred)
[log in to unmask]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__sites.google.com_site_clemsonarthropodcollection_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=-lUMCZ4RK28H4qvcd3vmEBuyVJHHG0OpDzFenR9wX-A&m=8JnmoDJxco8rIb_J0oM1LwB2j9N4H42scDPhEzTzOSg&s=WCHZpoHmUr2hwbZy5Wy9QCoQZGUENRa_8qi0eSImNMo&e= 
Subject Editor: The Coleopterists Bulletin; Insecta Mundi
Residue Photos:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__photos.app.goo.gl_EVknqBNJO28tfcHg2&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=-lUMCZ4RK28H4qvcd3vmEBuyVJHHG0OpDzFenR9wX-A&m=8JnmoDJxco8rIb_J0oM1LwB2j9N4H42scDPhEzTzOSg&s=HHIW7qO3tecb5IezxUWbv9ht9mqle41cGyhDsSht5CM&e= 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__photos.app.goo.gl_KWJY6VHoFybAq8FL2&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=-lUMCZ4RK28H4qvcd3vmEBuyVJHHG0OpDzFenR9wX-A&m=8JnmoDJxco8rIb_J0oM1LwB2j9N4H42scDPhEzTzOSg&s=HD9waGqZQxYz47ma1CALW4fzXMEmenCHvs7zetTvyRU&e=