Recognized publication outlets?

Give us your opinion about an entomological book or documentary and inform us about new publications.
Post Reply
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Reactions:
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Solomon Islands

Recognized publication outlets?

Post by Chuck »

Quick version: which publications are recognized by the pro entomology community for published papers?

Long version:

In the olden days, LepSoc and Tropical Lep were the standard go-to publications for releasing papers on new species.

These of course are not restricted to US publications; I know European publications were considered valid. I and JT were published in Futao (Japan) because TropLep had such a lengthy delay.

There was, perhaps 20 years ago, some contention over whether ZooTaxa should be recognized. As far as I know, it now is, as are some (how many?) other online sources. Even in chasing down papers by Marc Scriber, I see he's published in a variety of publications, including online only.

So let's say I want to publish a paper. How do I know what's considered acceptable, and what will be dismissed by professional entomologists?

ps not concerned about peer review or best practices, only how we (I) know what's recognized or not.

Thanks!
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Reactions:
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Location: Thailand
Thailand

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by adamcotton »

Chuck wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:28 pm Quick version: which publications are recognized by the pro entomology community for published papers?
Quick answer: any that are validly published.

You can publish anywhere you like, peer reviewed or not, online only or printed, except there are restrictions for papers which describe new taxa or introduce other nomenclatural acts governed by the ICZN Code.

Nomenclatural acts covered by the ICZN Code must be published in a manner which conforms to articles 1-20, and if published online only the publication must conform to the 2012 Amendment to the ICZN Code (Zootaxa 3450: 1–7). The publications do not have to be peer reviewed to comply with the ICZN Code, but the findings may be dismissed by other researchers in subsequent publications if they are erroneous.

By the way, Zootaxa is not an 'online only' publication, they produce printed copies of new papers which are sent to important institutions on the publication date, but they also conform to the Amendment.

In the example of Marc Scriber and his glaucus research, if his papers do not contain nomenclatural acts he can publish anywhere, including on a website if he really wants to. It is worth noting that "nomenclatural acts" include naming new taxa, designating lectotypes or neotypes, but do not include pure taxonomy (for instance stating that taxon A is a synonym of taxon B). It is important to understand the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy. The ICZN Code only governs nomenclature, so taxonomic papers without nomenclatural acts, ecological or behavioural work etc etc can be published in any manner an author wants.

Adam.
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Reactions:
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Solomon Islands

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by Chuck »

Thanks Adam.

I've found dozens, maybe hundreds, of online publications that have included nomenclatural acts. I have to assume they conform to the 2012 Amendment to the ICZN Code (Zootaxa 3450: 1–7), and presume that the website would state such. I'll have to go look.
User avatar
Jshuey
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Reactions:
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:27 pm
United States of America

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by Jshuey »

It depends on what you are wanting to publish. Using Scriber as an example, he was an evolutionary biologist who happened to work with Papilio glaucus, so he published mostly in high-impact evolutionary ecology journals that are viewed by a wider audience (not just lepidopterists). At the other extreme, Ron Gatrelle created "The International Lepidoptera Survey - The Taxonomic Report" as his own personal outlet. He designed it such that it met ICZN requirements because all he wanted to do was name things. Since then - some pretty respectable people have used it as an outlet (Nick Grishin comes to mind).

John
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Reactions:
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Location: Thailand
Thailand

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by adamcotton »

Chuck wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 2:14 pm Thanks Adam.

I've found dozens, maybe hundreds, of online publications that have included nomenclatural acts. I have to assume they conform to the 2012 Amendment to the ICZN Code (Zootaxa 3450: 1–7), and presume that the website would state such. I'll have to go look.
It is each actual paper that has to conform to the ICZN Code Amendment, rather than the website of an online publisher. There are a number of metaphorical 'hoops' that need to be 'jumped through'.

Here is a link to the Amendment:

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/list/2012/3450.html

Adam.
User avatar
bobw
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Reactions:
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 2:53 pm
Location: England
Great Britain

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by bobw »

I usually publish in Zootaxa, mainly because it is one of the few that is well-respected, peer-reviewed and free to publish. These last two are particularly important to me.
User avatar
wollastoni
Site Admin
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:51 am
Location: France
France

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by wollastoni »

Some small journals are very specialised and very interesting.
Like Sugapa, created by my late friend Henk van Mastrigt and Rob de Vos from the Leiden Museum, are very specialised on Papuan insects and full of great articles for those who like New Guinean insects.
https://www.sugapa.org/all-articles/

I now publish all my New Guinea-related articles there.
User avatar
vabrou
Junior Member
Junior Member
Reactions:
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 11:22 am
United States of America

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by vabrou »

I see a lot of BS stated here about publishing research and describing new species, etc. There is no such thing as a 'go to venue', or 'respected publication', 'peer reviewed' or 'not peer reviewed', makes no difference. Peer review is nearly useless unless you are a novice author, and don't have a clue about your subject or what you are doing. Having a long line of acronyms behind the authors name means practically nothing. I have known and worked with an awful lot of PhDs and Medical doctors that were dumb as a rock. Conversely, I have known and worked with persons without any university degrees that were near geniuses.

Once a species is described in print or other venue, that is all that is required no matter how small of a publication or how widely or limited it is available. E.g. 'The Lepidopterists Society publishes a quarterly Journal and Newsletters. I have published a handful of species descriptions and one generic revision in that particular Journal. This organization began with their publications printed via the mimeograph chemical process, which begins degrading as soon as it is printed. If a species description is printed, there is no rule discounting its validity. In fact, just the opposite. There are hundreds of thousands of different publications and venues in our scientific literature and 90+% of everything published has huge numbers of errors. There are MONA publications with as many as 4-5 errors on just about every page of the publication. If you feel otherwise, you are uninformed and are an obvious novice. When people tell me 'I've done it this way for 40 years.' That just usually means they have done something incorrectly for 40 years.

I note a proliferation of 'x-purts' making all sorts of ignorant statements about rules, laws, etc on insectnet forum over the decades.

Want to worry about something important look at all those PhDs that plagiarize other's research and steel other's hard work and claim it as their own and publish this plagiarized data for personal profit and notoriety. These are 'special fools'.

Chuck you stated " How do I know what's considered acceptable, and what will be dismissed by professional entomologists?" The word professional simply means that is a person who income and livelihood is derived by working in a certain field. There is no such thing as 'dismissed by any entomologists or persons. No one can undo a species description once a name is applied and published, even if it is in a publication the size of a postage stamp or is distributed to a few people or repositories/libraries. Early authors going back 2-3-4-5 centuries described numerous species in our scientific literature simply by listing a name and providing a drawing of the insect. Not one of those numerous thousands of species descriptions have ever been overturned. Even China and North Korea tried to cancel a recent publication trying to cover up the 'CHINA VIRUS' and said they had removed the publications from the scientific literature. Again, these are 'special fools'.

Here is a 2004 generic revision in which I also described two new species of lepidoptera published in 'The Jour. Lep. Soc. Free access link: https://www.academia.edu/20406808/TWO_N ... TED_STATES

Chuck you also stated "such and such ...were the standard go-to publications for releasing papers on new species." There is no such thing as any 'go-to publications'. This is BS and unsubstantiated drivel, unless your sum total knowledge can fit into a small thimble. You are telling us the other hundreds of thousands of publications and venues are invalid. I have published 445 entomological publications to date and in dozens of different venues across the world. Not one has ever been changed, cancelled or deemed invalid. ONLY YOU YOURSELF ARE THE EXPERT>>>>>>>>>>>
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Reactions:
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Solomon Islands

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by Chuck »

Well, I would NOT want the scientific world to accept a newly designated ssp that was published on Farsebook. Nor on iNaturalist, based on the level of error I see.

I was unaware of Taxonomic Report (though probably have a paper I pulled off it) and Sugupa as well. These are, apparently, specialized, which is fine. Whether thousands of other venues (e.g., Insectnet.com) are valid, invalid, or not accepted by the professional community I don't know; that's why I asked. I assume if I publish a new ssp on Farsebook tomorrow "somebody" is going to say it's invalid, despite "No one can undo a species description once a name is applied and published".

LepSoc and TropLep are rather well known, though last I heard there was a backlog and that, particularly with TropLep, a looooong delay. Anything hardcopy is a long delay, which leads me to "which publication/ venue is quickest?"

Why can't we publish new ssp. on Insectnet.com? What would it take to satisfy ICZN? Only ensuring that the article satisfies ICZN?


On an unrelated question: I have a taxonomic question that nobody will answer. Note "will" not "can." I want to know the answer. I'm thinking the easiest route would be to publish and perhaps drive someone to prove me wrong. For the sake of being made to look like a fool, at least I'd get the answer and at somebody else's financial & time cost. Thoughts?
User avatar
adamcotton
Global Moderators
Global Moderators
Reactions:
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Location: Thailand
Thailand

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by adamcotton »

Chuck wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:24 pm I assume if I publish a new ssp on Farsebook tomorrow "somebody" is going to say it's invalid, despite "No one can undo a species description once a name is applied and published". ...
Why can't we publish new ssp. on Insectnet.com? What would it take to satisfy ICZN? Only ensuring that the article satisfies ICZN?
Chuck,

If you read the ICZN Code Amendment in the link I posted above you will see that:

"Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:
<snip various points>
9.11. text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. via the Internet), except those fulfilling the requirements of Articles 8.1 and 8.5."

Importantly Article 8.5 includes registration in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank), with a requirement for the publication to have an ISBN for the work or an ISSN for the journal containing the work.
Obviously Social Media such as "Farsebook" or websites such as Insectnet forum do not have these. They also cannot form part of the permanent scientific record as the contents can be subsequently changed or completely lost in future. Zoobank will not accept registration of works that do not conform to the requirements of the Code, and if electronic publications are not registered they are not validly published.

Adam.
User avatar
vabrou
Junior Member
Junior Member
Reactions:
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 11:22 am
United States of America

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by vabrou »

Chuck, no I would not try to name a species on Fakebook, this Fake News platform changes and deletes what is posted and all of that FB crap is temporary and can change or be deleted totally out of your control several times daily. This is not a stable venue. Though a few years back, our good friend Leroy illustrated a new species of noctuid on FB, and then he braggartly published in the comments that he knew the proposed species name, and he published that name in print. So he in reality was the first person to name this species in public and in print open to the world. I seem to be the first person to collect that species and recognize it as a new undescribed species of Schinia. When I called him out about his significant faux pas, he claimed he didn't know or understand any of the rules of the ICZN. He claimed he was just a simple moth collector. I think the key word here is 'SIMPLE'

Don't try to experiment publishing some foolishness that will haunt your personal reputation for decades to come. I would never think of describing a new species only on line as the internet and the non-permanent sites you may use come and go using just a click. This is just like describing a new species based upon a photo (image). Persons who promote this foolishness are a new kind of 'special fools'. I have always said, some species descriptions are just the personal opinions of the person who published it.

I make note of two clearwing moths I have a manuscript in preparation on, and I had to look at materials of Synanthedon arkansasensis Duckworth and Eichlin which was described 49 years ago. What I discovered was that these world renown authors of numerous revisionary works on clearwing moths over several continents had a corrupted TYPE series in their original 1973 description of S. arkansasensis contained 4-5 different species. Then over the subsequent 45+ years they continued to misdetermin other species also as S. arkansasensis which have their Eichlin and Duckworth determination labels attached in museum collections and university collections across the US. During our investigation we found that over a half century, 13 different species were determined by Duckworth (and/or) Eichlin all to be S. arkansasensis. Peer review failed miserably in this instance. Long ago, I recognized relying on an 'expert' is dumb.
User avatar
wollastoni
Site Admin
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:51 am
Location: France
France

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by wollastoni »

vabrou wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:12 amChuck, no I would...
vabrou : please stop using large font. It is horrible to read. And it gives us the impression you are shouting...
And I don't see why you have to denigrate Leroy in this topic saying he is "simple"... Read our first rule please : viewtopic.php?t=3

Fbk is a great social network, but indeed not a good place for publishing a scientific article.

Peer-review can of course fail, but in many cases, it helps improve a paper. Chris Davenport, another Delias specialist, is peer reviewing all my Delias articles and he regularly finds some errors before publication. I must be "simple" too...
Chuck
Premium Member - 2024
Premium Member - 2024
Reactions:
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon May 23, 2022 2:30 pm
Solomon Islands

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by Chuck »

I’m often reading the forum on my phone and very much appreciate the larger font! Of course I can resize my screen and move it around to read, but the large font is both easier to read and stays within the boundary of the frame.

Aging eyes, you know. Now looking for recommendations on knees.

I appreciate all of the great insights, both into accepted practices and pushing outside the norm. My understanding of nomenclature publishing has been well expanded with these few posts.
User avatar
wollastoni
Site Admin
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:51 am
Location: France
France

Re: Recognized publication outlets?

Post by wollastoni »

Chuck wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 10:19 am I’m often reading the forum on my phone and very much appreciate the larger font! Of course I can resize my screen and move it around to read, but the large font is both easier to read and stays within the boundary of the frame.

Aging eyes
For this kind of reading issues, you can automatically enlarge all fonts on your phone.
For Iphone, read this : https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT20282 ... you%20want.
For Samsung, read this : https://www.samsung.com/latin_en/suppor ... axy-phone/
Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in