Elements of this post are taken from my article “PLoS ONE Publishes First Taxonomic Paper” on The Other 95% on May 28, 2008. I’ve reposted it here as I am collecting my thoughts about open access publishing.
———————————————————-
Why should one support open access publishing of taxonomic papers?
Visibility is important to the field of systematics, where the relevance is often lost amidst the taxonomic jargon. By removing the subscription barrier, taxonomists make their work accessible and noticeable to researchers all over the world. Increasingly, the need has never been greater for high quality taxonomy. The treatment of neglected tropical diseases relies on proper identification of the pathogen or parasite. Species form the fundamental unit of much of evolution and ecology. Sound knowledge of species and their attributes is basic to all other fields of biology ranging from the molecular to the Earth system. While scientists might not agree on which side of the fuzzy line a particular species lies, there is no doubt about the importance of species identification and description.
The time is now for taxonomy and systemacists to enter the digital age. New web technologies can prove effective at linking papers, potentially increasing readership and bringing disparate fields together. For instance, a paper describing a new species of pathogenic nematode can have hyperlinked keywords that summarize the findings, i.e. “Nematoda” “[Genus species] sp.nov.” “[Genus species] (of host)” “Pathogenesis” “Endoparasite” “[Locality Information]“, etc. Other non-taxonomic articles of interest with hyperlinked keywords can be linked together for researchers to uncover. Species names themselves can be linked to the original paper, so one can find basic information about that species. This will make it easier to ground-truth simple observations about a species that can affect interpretations in other research, such as where it has been described from, variation in characteristics between sexes and sites, behavioral and diet observations and life history traits.
Why should one care if PLoS ONE publishes taxonomy?
PLoS ONE is an innovative publishing model that is part of the PLoS (Public Library of Science) network. PLoS is already established as a leader in online, open access publishing of high quality research in biology and the health sciences. The importance of the papers published in PLoS journals is well-recognized by academics and funding agencies. PLoS ONE, being relatively new, has yet to acquire the same metrics as the other journals (but is now listed on Thompson ISI, including earning an impact factor in June for those concerned with such things). Seeing the diversity and quality of papers being published, there is little doubt the initial metrics will reflect positively on the mission of PLoS. The visibility and reputation that articles published in PLoS journals gain will benefit taxonomy.
PLoS ONE’s model allows for post-publication tools such as annotating and commenting on articles. Instead of articles being the final word on an experiment or hypothesis, they become the beginning of a conversation. For taxonomy, one can comment on new observations or developments in that species. You can drop a link in the article’s comments to a revision you did or another paper investigating that species physiology, for example. In short, the PLoS ONE model lets a paper, or species description, have a permanent home on the web where it can be used as a record of its existence and any discussion of that particular species. Conversely, as noted by Rod Page on my last post on open access taxonomy, the commenting and annotation system is not well utilized by the scientific community. This may be a generational issue, where the first generation resists change while subsequent generations become more amenable to new ways of doing science. Time will tell how useful the community at large will find these article-level tools and metrics. More importantly perhaps, how agreeable tenure and hiring committees will be to their use. PLoS might speed it slightly by applying this model to all of their journals to show that they really believe in it and it is not just an experiment.
Some barriers exist to publication in a journal like PLoS ONE or BMC. Taxonomy is not a wealthy science despite its unsung significance. In the open access model, the author pays a publication fee to offset the journal’s costs to make the paper freely available online and in perpetuity. It is a trade-off, but it prevents publishing houses from double dipping into funds by charging institutions for access to content while charging authors page fees. Libraries and institutions worldwide can openly access content irrespective of their financial status, as can members of the public whose tax dollars pay for a good chunk of research in the United States. One obvious solution is for more funding to taxonomy and systematic research. Publication fees can be written into new grants or possibly the creation of special grants using money saved from journal subscriptions can be used to pay open access fees. PLoS journals also make sure that the ability of authors to pay publication charges is not a consideration in the decision whether to publish. They can provide fee waivers for authors without grants and researchers from developing countries that lack the financial resources enjoyed by developed nations.
This may encourage more papers being published to include a synthesis of many taxa or to be written in monographic style encompassing the fauna of a region per se. Putting more taxa into the paper may increase the bang for the buck. You may pay less in fees (per page charges are eliminated in online publishing) and perhaps make the paper more citable. I am not suggesting this works in all cases, more information in a paper certainly doesn’t a better paper make. Certainly there are situations where grouping taxa into a single article may make sense, i.e. The Crustacea of Coastal Norway instead of 2 papers on shrimp and a paper on crabs.
Another barrier deals with requirements by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which promotes “stability and universality in the scientific names of animals and to ensure that the name of each taxon is unique and distinct”. One requirement (Chapter 3, Article 8.6) for articles published online is for deposition of the printed article in “at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself”. PLoS ONE went out of their way to work with leading institutions in 5 countries to ensure the proper cataloging of their first taxonomic paper. This willingness to do what it takes to get quality publications published irrespective of their discipline highlights their commitment to PLoS’ core principles, in particular those of Breadth, Cooperation, Internationalism, and Science as a Public Resource. Since their first publication in 2008, there are now 12 more taxonomic works in PLoS ONE (describing 21 new species), by no means mandate on change, but a hint of acceptance at least.
Should taxonomists forego traditional publishing outlets?
The better option would be for those outlets to go online and open access! If there is some success to PLoS ONE in their venture to publish papers of a taxonomic nature, hopefully it will inspire established journals to follow suit. If you believe strongly in the force of the digital age to implement positive change in science, support open access initiatives by publishing your articles there.
One may posit that hybrid journals, where authors may elect to pay an additional fee to make their article accessible online for free, is a step forward in the right direction. Noted open access proponent Peter Suber notes one should proceed with caution when electing to publish in a hybrid journal for several reasons. In particular, hybrid journal options do not free up subscription money from libraries. Because it is a risk-free strategy for journals, there is not an incentive to get rid of subscriptions fees all together, since most authors do not elect the free-access option. Many publishers still do not make their publishing model, or data on the efficacy of the hybrid option, available. This makes it difficult to police whether they are reducing subscription fees in relation to author uptake of the free-access option, where high fees are paid to offset subscription fees.
Though Rod Page argued justifiably that a “PLoS Systematics” gives branding and little else, is this not a step forward? Part of the issue with taxonomic publishing is the invisibility and irrelevance of the field outside of the view of the ivory museum. Maybe taxonomy needs rebranding? I do not believe it can hurt us to interact with the rest of the biological community out there. This is one (perhaps the only) of the benefits of a generalist journal. People outside of your field are more likely to browse a Science or Current Biology than say Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington or Cladistics. I am not saying this translates to more citations or awareness, but it raises the discipline to the same level as other scientific disciplines.
The next post will discuss Open Access Taxonomy and whether we should perform plastic surgery on Zootaxa and Zookeys.
Recent Comments