A falsification of the citation impediment in the taxonomic literature

Systematic Biology

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 860-868

  Steiner, Florian M ^a   Pautasso, Marco ^b,c   Zettel, Herbert ^d   Moder, Karl ^e   Arthofer, Wolfgang ^a   Schlick Steiner, Birgit C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY   (Italy)

^d NATURHISTORISCHES MUSEUM WIEN   (Austria)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Animals; Citations; Impact factor; Microorganisms; Plants; Scientometrics; Taxonomic impediment; Taxonomy

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; ETHICS; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE; STANDARDS;

CLASSIFICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE;

EID: 84954173683     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syv026     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Adler K.B. 2009. Impact factor and its role in academic promotion. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 41: 127.
2. Adler N.J., Harzing A.W. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 8: 72-95.
3. Agnarsson I.,Kuntner M. 2007. Taxonomy in a changingworld: Seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Syst. Biol. 56: 531-539.
4. Anderson R.S., Majka C.G. 2009. Biodiversity and biosystematic research in a brave new21st century information-technologyworld. ZooKeys 22: 1-4.
5. Bebber D.P.,Wood J.R.I., Barker C., ScotlandR.W. 2014.Author inflation masks global capacity for species discovery in flowering plants.New Phytol. 201: 700-706.
6. Benítez H.A. 2014. Is the fever for high impact a disadvantage for systematists? Neotrop. Entomol. 43: 295-297.
7. Bilton D.T. 2014. What's in a name? What have taxonomy and systematics ever done for us? J. Biol. Educ. 48: 116-118.
8. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. 2011. Supporting species in ODE: Explaining and citing. Org. Divers. Evol. 11: 1-2.
9. Boero F. 2001. Light after dark: The partnership for enhancing expertise in taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 266.
10. Boero F. 2010. The study of species in the era of biodiversity: A tale of stupidity. Diversity 2: 115-126.
11. Bornmann L., Daniel H.D. 2008. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J. Doc. 64: 45-80.
12. Bortolus A. 2008. Error cascades in the biological sciences: The unwanted consequences of using bad taxonomy in ecology. Ambio 37: 114-118.
13. Boykin L.M., Armstrong K.F., Kubatko L., Barro P.D. 2011. Species delimitation and global biosecurity. Evol. Bioinform. 8: 1-37.
14. Brumback R.A. 2012. "3 . . 2 . . 1 . . impact [factor]: Target [academic career] destroyed!": Just another statistical casualty. J. ChildNeurol. 27: 1565-1576.
15. Carbayo F.,MarquesA.C. 2011. The costs of describing the entire animal kingdom. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26: 154-155.
16. Casadevall A., Fang F.C. 2014. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 5: 5.
17. Costello M.J., Wilson S., Houlding B. 2013. More taxonomists describing significantly fewer species per unit effort may indicate that most species have been discovered. Syst. Biol. 62: 616-624.
18. De Carvalho M.R., Bockmann F.A.,AmorimD.S., Brandao C.R.F., Vivo M.d., Figueiredo J.L.d., Britski H.A., Pinna M.C.C.d., MenezesN.A., Marques F.P.L., Papavero N., Cancello E.M., Crisci J.V., McEachran J.D., Schelly R.C., Lundberg J.G., Gill A.C., Britz R., Wheeler Q.D., Stiassny M.L.J., Parenti L.R., Page L.M., WheelerW.C., Faivovich J., Vari R.P., Grande L.,Humphries C.J., DeSalle R., EbachM.C.,Nelson G.J. 2007. Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic-automation paradigm. Evol. Biol. 34: 140-143.
19. De Carvalho M.R., Ebach M.C., Williams D.M., Nihei S.S., Rodrigues M.T., Grant T., Silveira L.F., Zaher H., Gill A.C., Schelly R.C., Sparks J.S., Bockmann F.A., Seret B.,HoH.C., Grande L., Rieppel O., Dubois A., OhlerA., Faivovich J., Assis L.C.S., Wheeler Q.D., Goldstein P.Z., de Almeida E.A.B., Valdecasas A.G., Nelson G. 2014. Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again. Cladistics 30: 322-329.
20. Ebach M.C., Valdecasas A.G., Wheeler Q.D. 2011. Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: Accessibility and impact evaluation. Cladistics 27: 550-557.
21. Elias S.A. 2013. A brief history of the changing occupations and demographics of coleopterists from the 18th through the 20th century. J. Hist. Biol. 47: 213-242.
22. Erikson M.G., Erlandson P. 2014. A taxonomy of motives to cite. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44: 625-637.
23. Eyre-Walker A., Stoletzki N. 2013. The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol. 11: E1001675.
24. Foley J.A. 2013. Peer review, citation ratings and other fetishes. Springer Sci. Rev. 1: 1-3.
25. Gaston K.J., May R.M. 1992. Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356: 281-282.
26. Godfray H.C.J. 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417: 17-19.
27. Halme P., Kuusela S., Juslén A. 2015. Why taxonomists and ecologists are not, but should be, carpooling? Biodivers. Conserv. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-015-0899-3.
28. Haszprunar G. 2011. Species delimitations - not "only descriptive". Org. Divers. Evol. 11: 249-252.
29. Hopkins G.W., Freckleton R.P. 2002. Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: Implications for conservation. Anim. Conserv. 5: 245-249.
30. Kaushal S.S., Jeschke J.M. 2013. Collegiality versus competition: How metrics shape scientific communities. BioScience 63: 155-156.
31. Krell F.-T. 2000. Impact factors aren't relevant to taxonomy. Nature 405: 507-508.
32. Krell F.-T. 2002. Why impact factors don't work for taxonomy. Nature 415: 957.
33. Lester P.J., Brown S.D.J., Edwards E.D., Holwell G.I., Pawson S.M., Ward D.F., Watts C.H. 2014. Critical issues facing New Zealand entomology. N. Z. Entomol. 37: 1-13.
34. McDade L.A., Maddison D.R., Guralnick R., Piwowar H.A., Jameson M.L., Helgen K.M., Herendeen P.S., Hill A., Vis M.L. 2011. Biology needs a modern assessment system for professional productivity. BioScience 61: 619-625.
35. Mora C., Tittensor D.P., Adl S., Simpson A.G.B., Worm B. 2011. How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol. 9: E1001127.
36. Parnell J. 1993. Plant taxonomic research, with special reference to the tropics: Problems and potential solutions. Conserv. Biol. 7: 809-814.
37. Patterson M. 2009. Is the end in cite? EMBO Rep. 10: 1186.
38. Pearson D.L., Hamilton A.L., Erwin T.L. 2011. Recovery plan for the endangered taxonomy profession. BioScience 61: 58-63.
39. Pyke G.H. 2014. Evaluating the quality of taxonomic publications: A simple alternative to citations and effort. BioScience 64: 961-962.
40. Samyn Y., Clock O.D. 2012. No name, no game. Eur. J. Taxon. 10: 1-3.
41. Schekman R.P.M. 2013. Reforming research assessment. eLife 2: E00855.
42. Schlick-Steiner B.C., Steiner F.M., Seifert B., Stauffer C., Christian E., Crozier R.H. 2010. Integrative taxonomy: Amultisource approach to exploring biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55: 421-438.
43. Shashank P.R., Meshram N.M. 2014. Impact factor-driven taxonomy: Deterrent to Indian taxonomists? Curr. Sci. 106: 10.
44. Simons K. 2008. The misused impact factor. Science 322: 165.
45. Sluys R. 2013. The unappreciated, fundamentally analytical nature of taxonomy and the implications for the inventory of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 22: 1095-1105.
46. Stork H., Astrin J.J. 2014.Trends in biodiversity research - A bibliometric assessment. Open J. Ecol. 4: 354-370.
47. Sundberg P., Strand M. 2009. Taxonomic inflation or taxonomist deflation? A comment on Dubois. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 96: 712-714.
48. Swiss Academy of Sciences 2007. The future of systematics in Switzerland: Systematics as a key discipline in biology. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 45: 285-288.
49. Tancoigne E., Dubois A. 2013. Taxonomy: No decline, but inertia. Cladistics 29: 567-570.
50. Valdecasas A.G. 2011. An index to evaluate the quality of taxonomic publications. Zootaxa 2925: 57-62.
51. Valdecasas A.G., Castroviejo S., Marcus L.F. 2000. Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature 403: 698.
52. Vale R.D. 2012. Evaluating how we evaluate. Mol. Biol. Cell 23: 3285-3289.
53. Venu P., Sanjappa M. 2011. The impact factor and taxonomy. Curr. Sci. 101: 1397.
54. Wägele H., Klussmann-Kolb A., Kuhlmann M., Haszprunar G., Lindberg D., Koch A., Wägele J.W. 2011. The taxonomist - An endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival. Front. Zool. 8: 25.
55. Werner Y.L. 2006. The case of impact factor versus taxonomy: A proposal. J. Nat. Hist. 40: 1285-1286.
56. West G.B. 2014. A theoretical physicist's journey into biology: From quarks and strings to cells and whales. Phys. Biol. 11: 053013.
57. Wheeler Q.D. 2004. Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 359: 571-583.
58. Zhang Z.Q. 2011. Accelerating biodiversity descriptions and transforming taxonomic publishing: The first decade of Zootaxa. Zootaxa 2896: 1-7.