Evaluating the quality of taxonomic publications: A simple alternative to citations and effort

BioScience

Volumn 64, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 961-962

  Pyke, Graham H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84911151168     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: 15253244     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu154     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. Krell F-T. 2000. Impact factors aren't relevant to taxonomy. Nature 405: 507-508
2. Krell F-T. 2002. Why impact factors don't work for taxonomy. Nature 415: 957
3. Páll-Gergely B. 2014. Suggestions to improve the taxonomy index (T-Index) introduced by Valdecasas (2011). Zootaxa 3780: 399-400
4. Pyke GH. 2013. Struggling scientists. Please cite our papers Current Science 105: 1061-1066
5. Pyke GH 2014. Achieving research excellence and citation success: What's the point and how do you do it?. BioScience 64: 90-91
6. Valdecasas AG. 2011. An index to evaluate the quality of taxonomic publications. Zootaxa 2925: 57-62
7. Pyke GH. 2014. A reply to Páll-Gergely's sug-gestions to improve the taxonomy index (T-Index) introduced by Valdecasas (2011). Zootaxa 3784: 99-100
8. Valdecasas AG, Castroviejo S, Marcus LF. 2000. Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 403: 698
9. Venu P, Sanjappa M. 2011. The impact factor and taxonomy. Current Science 101: 1397
10. Wägele H, Klussmann-Kolb A, Kuhlmann M, Haszprunar G, Lindberg D, Koch A, Wägele JW. 2011. The taxonomist-An endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival. Frontiers in Zoology 8 (art. 25