Comments on: Repost: Is the World of Taxonomy Ready for PLoS Systematics? http://www.zelnio.org/2010/02/04/repost-is-the-world-of-taxonomy-ready-for-plos-systematics/ Deep Sea Biology | Systematics & Taxonomy | Science Writing | Music Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:16:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Twitted by rdmpage http://www.zelnio.org/2010/02/04/repost-is-the-world-of-taxonomy-ready-for-plos-systematics/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Twitted by rdmpage Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:37:18 +0000 http://www.zelnio.org/?p=383#comment-536 [...] This post was Twitted by rdmpage [...] [...] This post was Twitted by rdmpage [...]

]]> By: Rod Page http://www.zelnio.org/2010/02/04/repost-is-the-world-of-taxonomy-ready-for-plos-systematics/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Rod Page Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:31:58 +0000 http://www.zelnio.org/?p=383#comment-535 I get slightly nervous when people propose new taxonomy journals, for several reasons. First of, there's the question of why not focus on making <a href="http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/" title="Zootaxa" rel="nofollow">Zootaxa</a> better (e.g., expand the number of Open Access articles). If OA and more modern methods of data availability are the concern, then why not put effort into a journal such as <a href="http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/" title="Zookeys" rel="nofollow">Zookeys</a>? Then there's the question of what we want to achieve. I know that PLoS is a good brand, but the comment and annotation system doesn't seem to be a huge success (see <a href="http://shirleywho.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/a-brief-analysis-of-commenting-at-bmc-plos-and-bmj/" rel="nofollow">A brief analysis of commenting at BMC, PLoS, and BMJ</a>). PLoS and BMC are exciting experiments in publishing, but personally I think that they are still pretty conservative. The core unit in these journals is still the article, and lots of data is still wrapped up in PDF, Word, and Excel files. Just having <b><i>PLoS Systematics</i></b> gives us branding but not much more. I think if we're going to the trouble of a new journal, we have to radically rethink the way we publish this kind of data (e.g., links to museum specimens, name synonymies, geographic queries, etc.). For example, what if "articles" were wikis, where the annotation is not some superficial comments, but deep linking to pages about the taxa, museum specimens, localities, sequences, phylogenies, etc.? I get slightly nervous when people propose new taxonomy journals, for several reasons. First of, there’s the question of why not focus on making Zootaxa better (e.g., expand the number of Open Access articles). If OA and more modern methods of data availability are the concern, then why not put effort into a journal such as Zookeys?

Then there’s the question of what we want to achieve. I know that PLoS is a good brand, but the comment and annotation system doesn’t seem to be a huge success (see A brief analysis of commenting at BMC, PLoS, and BMJ).

PLoS and BMC are exciting experiments in publishing, but personally I think that they are still pretty conservative. The core unit in these journals is still the article, and lots of data is still wrapped up in PDF, Word, and Excel files. Just having PLoS Systematics gives us branding but not much more.

I think if we’re going to the trouble of a new journal, we have to radically rethink the way we publish this kind of data (e.g., links to museum specimens, name synonymies, geographic queries, etc.). For example, what if “articles” were wikis, where the annotation is not some superficial comments, but deep linking to pages about the taxa, museum specimens, localities, sequences, phylogenies, etc.?

]]>