I must say that i fully agree with Sergi’s comment. A species is a scientific hypothesis as relevant as any ecological postulate. However, we are certainly in disadvantage in terms of citations because species authors are recurrently disregarded in terms of citations. This is particularly true when we are talking about ecological works, but not only: yes, in taxonomic papers too.
In all my reviews, when it applies, I always advice the authors to include the references of the species, but I must say that not all editors agree with this proposal, and I am often seeing the paper I have reviewed being published without what would be an appropriately complete list of cited references.
I am giving my full support to Sergi’s initiative, it is time to try to move things. Maybe we may start by writing a letter clearly explaining the situation, then try to get support from as much taxonomists as possible and then address it to any forum where “our” species are inappropriately used.
Best,
Dani
——
Dr. Daniel Martin
Scientific Researcher
Centre d’Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CEAB - CSIC)
- Carrer d'accès a la Cala Sant Francesc 14
- 17300 Blanes (Girona), Catalunya (Spain)
- Tel: (34) 972336101
- Mobile phone: (34) 636046003
- Fax: (34) 972337806
- WWW Institutional: http://www.ceab.csic.es
- WWW Personal: http://www.ceab.csic.es/personal/daniel-martin-sintes/
> El 31 maig 2018, a les 0:08, Sergio Taboada <sergiotab from gmail.com> va escriure:
>> Congratulations Geoff for the recognition! Very well deserved.
>> I would like to take advantage on this email to share some thoughts with
> you that are quite related to WoRMS. These thoughts have probably been
> raised in the past in this Annelida forum, but I would not like to lose the
> opportunity to do it now and probably *open a small debate around it*.
>> Do you know how many citations a paper like the one by Folmer et al (1994)
> describing COI primers universally used for PCR amplification and
> sequencing have? The answer is more than 9000. This paper provides a very
> useful information about the sequences of two primers that many of us use
> for our barcoding of phylogenetic analysis. But, is it more relevant in
> terms of citation on a paper than citing the paper that described a species
> reported in the same paper? The answer for that is that they would be at
> least (in my opinion) equally relevant and both should be cited in the text.
>> Reality is quite different. Papers like the one by Folmer et al (1994) are
> *always* cited in scientific studies, *while papers describing species are*
> *rarely* included in the reference lists unless they are part of a
> taxonomic study. It means that work done by us (when providing essential
> information about species in our taxonomic and systematic studies) is quite
> often disregarded and undervalued. We do probably are kind of responsible
> for this situation, because we tend to think that taxonomic/systematic
> studies are not to be cited in, for example, ecological papers. In this
> kind of ecological studies, for instance, we tend to provide long lists of
> species that provide a great value for our studies but just consider them
> as 'simple' names and not as a source of scientific information themselves.
> Do the papers in which these names were described have less value than the
> paper by Folmer et al (1994)? The answer is *NO*. There is loads of effort
> and work behind all these names which should be valued.
>> What can we do to fix this (unfair) situation? We are a very big and active
> community of researchers and there are several more communities as ours
> 'out' there. Most of us review papers and some are part of editorial boards
> in different scientific journals. I do not probably have a say as an
> individual but if joining together (Annelida, Porifera etc etc etc) we can
> be a quite effective 'super-organism' able to have things changed.
>> *There is a restriction of space in some of the journals: *Ok. Then let's
> add these references in a Supplementary Reference List.
>> *Taxonomy matters* and if we want other people taking it/us seriously we
> need to start by giving it the value it deserves.
>> All the best,
> Sergi.
>>> 2018-05-28 11:25 GMT+01:00 Barbara Mikac <mikacbarbara from gmail.com>:
>>> Congratulations and thank you for your efforts, Geoff!
>>>> Greetings,
>> Barbara
>>>> _____________
>> Barbara Mikac
>> Professor of Bology, microbiology and healthcare control
>> Institute of Higher Education "Ettore Majorana"
>> Technical and technological Institute - Healthcare biotechnologies
>> Via Caselle 26
>> 40068 San Lazzaro di Savena
>> Bologna
>> Italy
>>>> On 22 May 2018 at 07:59, Simon, CA, Dr [csimon from sun.ac.za] <
>>CSIMON from sun.ac.za>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Geoff
>>>>>> I'd like to add on to all the other congratulations that have come
>> through
>>> these last few days. You and the other editors are doing an amazing job
>>> that has made all of our lives so much easier.
>>>>>> Thank you very much
>>> Carol
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu <annelida-bounces from oat.bio.>>> indiana.edu> On Behalf Of Geoff Read
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:18 AM
>>> To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu>>> Subject: RE: [Annelida] congratulations Geoff!
>>>>>> Thanks Nancy,
>>>>>> It’s great to get a response like that. The idea is that we put up the
>>> information and explanatory notes, and users can take it as they wish,
>>> disagree if they have reason to, and let us know if it is wrong, but most
>>> importantly usually only one person needs to do the time-consuming
>> delving
>>> into the history and sorting out the anomalies. And everyone, including
>>> the editors, benefit if the publications are stored at WoRMS or linked
>>> direct to the BHL online pages, and original descriptions can be read at
>> a
>>> click away. There’s still a lot more to do, but we are making progress.
>>>>>> I don’t do this alone, but with several current and past editors of
>>> particular families, including Harry ten Hove who was there even before
>>> Kristian contributed his database, and is still there. I’d also like to
>>> make special mention of João Gil, who has made a major contribution
>> across
>>> a spectrum of families in the time since he joined in 2013, has got very
>>> skilled with working at WoRMS, and is great with finding and linking the
>>> literature. We could not keep up with the inflow without him. Thanks
>> João!
>>>>>> For those that don’t know, on Twitter I am @WPolyDb posting for our
>>> section of the WoRMS database, retweeting new lit, nice pics, and keeping
>>> to wormy topics.
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>> Geoff
>>>>>> From: Nancy Maciolek [mailto:njmaciolek from gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2018 5:34 a.m.
>>> To: Chris Glasby <chris.glasby from nt.gov.au>
>>> Cc: Geoff Read <Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz>;
>>annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.ed>>> Subject: Re: [Annelida] congratulations Geoff!
>>>>>> I would like to congratulate Geoff on this award and also thank him
>>> enthusiastically for all he has done to significantly upgrade the WoRMS
>>> database over the past several years. It is simply amazing to me that we
>>> now have links to so many publications embedded in the database, as well
>> as
>>> history on some of the name changes, comments on same, and other pieces
>> of
>>> information that in the "old days" might have been impossible to ferret
>> out
>>> without a great deal of effort. A huge job, well done.
>>>>>> Thank you, Geoff!
>>>>>> best regards,
>>> Nancy
>>>>>> Nancy J. Maciolek
>>>>>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Chris Glasby <chris.glasby from nt.gov.au<
>>> mailto:chris.glasby from nt.gov.au>> wrote:
>>> Hats off to our World Polychaeta Database leader.
>>>>>> WoRMS has just announced that Geoff has received an 'Achievement Award'
>> at
>>> the 5th World Conference of Marine Biodiversity (Canada, Montreal, 16
>> May)
>>> for the major and very detailed contributions he has made to WoRMS in the
>>> past years, and his input & constructive feedback during his time on the
>>> Steering Committee.
>>>>>> The announcement also acknowledged his work as the driving force behind
>>> The World Polychaeta Database (http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta),
>>> his efforts to create a more inclusive online AnnelidaBase (in analogy
>> with
>>> MolluscaBase), and for communicating the good work of WoRMS through
>>> Twitter.
>>>>>> Great work Geoff!! I think I can say for all that we are all massively
>>> appreciative of the work you do to make our online annelid lives easier.
>>>>>> Best, Chris
>>>>>>>>> [http://cdn.sun.ac.za/100/ProductionFooter.jpg]<http://>>> www.sun.ac.za/english/Pages/Water-crisis.aspx>
>>>>>> The integrity and confidentiality of this email is governed by these
>>> terms. Disclaimer<http://www.sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer>
>>> Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die
>> volgende
>>> bepalings gereël. Vrywaringsklousule<http://www.>> sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Annelida mailing list
>>> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net>>> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>>> Resources: http://www.annelida.net>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> Annelida mailing list
>> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net>> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/>>>>>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Sergi Taboada
>> The Natural History Museum of London
>> Life Sciences Dept., Invertebrates Division
> DC1, 6th floor
> Office 605
>> Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD, London (UK)
> Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7492 5433
>>sergiotab from gmail.com> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergi_Taboada>Sergi Taboada in
> Researchgate <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergi_Taboada>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Annelida mailing list
> Post: Annelida from net.bio.net> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida> Resources: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/
