Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?

Taxonomy is essential to biological sciences and the priority field in face of the biodiversity crisis. The industry of scientific publications has made extensive promotion and display of bibliometric indexes, resulting in side effects such as the Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF) mania. Inadequacies of the widely used indexes to assess taxonomic publications are among the impediments for the progress of this field. Based on an unusually high proportion of self-citations, the mega-journal Zootaxa, focused on zoological taxonomy, was suppressed from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR, Clarivate™). A prompt reaction from the scientific community against this decision took place exposing myths and misuses of bibliometrics. Our goal is to shed light on the impact of misuse of bibliometrics to the production in taxonomy. We explored JCR's metrics for 2010-2018 of 123 zoological journals publishing taxonomic studies. Zootaxa, with around 15 000 citations, received 311% more citations than the second most cited journal, and shows higher levels of self-citations than similar journals. We consider Zootaxa's scope and the fact that it is a mega-journal are insufficient to explain its high level of self-citation. Instead, this result is related to the 'Zootaxa phenomenon', a sociological bias that includes visibility and potentially harmful misconceptions that portray the journal as the only one that publishes taxonomic studies. Menaces to taxonomy come from many sources and the low bibliometric indexes, including JIF, are only one factor among a range of threats. Instead of being focused on statistically illiterate journal metrics endorsing the villainy of policies imposed by profit-motivated companies, taxonomists should be engaged with renewed strength in actions directly connected to the promotion and practice of this science without regard for citation analysis.

Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?

Taxonomy is essential to biological sciences and the priority field to be supported in face of the biodiversity crisis. The industry of scientific publications has made extensive use of bibliometric indexes, resulting in distortions to institutions, organizations, and researchers, such as the side effect known as Journal Impact Factor (JIF) mania. Inadequacies of the most widely used bibliometric indexes from giant companies Clarivate™ (InCites™) and RELX™ Elsevier B.V. (Scopus®) to assessment of the relevance of taxonomic publications were considered as one of the impediments for the progress of this field. Recently, Clarivate suppressed the mega-journal Zootaxa, focused on taxonomy, from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), a database with 12,000 periodicals. Zootaxa suppression, together with other 32 journals, was based on an unusual high proportion of self-citations. Suppressed journals would thus not receive a value of JIF for 2020. A prompt reaction from the scientific community against the suppression of Zootaxa took place and, accordingly, Clarivate announced its reinstatement. This situation exposed many persistent myths and misuses of bibliometric indexes. The goal of this study is to shed light on the impacts of bibliometric indexes to the taxonomic field and on underlying aspects of the suppression of Zootaxa. Our major question is whether the suppression of any journal from JIF can really affect the production in the taxonomic field. We explored data metrics from the JCR (Web of Science Core Collection™) for 2010­2018 of the top ten zoological journals (eight are included in JCR) in the number of new taxa and journals focused on or regularly publishing taxonomic studies, totaling 123 journals. Zootaxa shows higher levels of self-citations than similar journals. We consider that two possible explanations provided for the high number of self-citations, i.e., Zootaxa's scope on taxonomy and the fact that it is a mega-journal, are inadequate. Instead, putative explanations are related to the "Zootaxa phenomenon," a sociological bias that includes visibility, and potential harmful myths that portray Zootaxa as the unique journal that publishes taxonomic studies with an inviting JIF value. Menaces to taxonomy as a science come from many sources and the low bibliometric values of its journals are only one of the factors that contribute for establishing the so-called taxonomic impediment. We suggest rejection of bibliometric indexes, including JIF, instead of considering them when convenient. Taxonomists as a community, instead of being deeply focused on journal metrics endorsing the villainy of bibliometric policies imposed by dominant companies, should be engaged with renewed strength in actions directly connected to the development and promotion of this science.

Relationship between conservation biology and ecology shown through machine reading of 32,000 articles.

Conservation biology was founded on the idea that efforts to save nature depend on a scientific understanding of how it works. It sought to apply ecological principles to conservation problems. We investigated whether the relationship between these fields has changed over time through machine reading the full texts of 32,000 research articles published in 16 ecology and conservation biology journals. We examined changes in research topics in both fields and how the fields have evolved from 2000 to 2014. As conservation biology matured, its focus shifted from ecology to social and political aspects of conservation. The 2 fields diverged and now occupy distinct niches in modern science. We hypothesize this pattern resulted from increasing recognition that social, economic, and political factors are critical for successful conservation and possibly from rising skepticism about the relevance of contemporary ecological theory to practical conservation.

Relaciones entre la Biología de la Conservación y la Ecología Mostradas a través de la Lectura Mediante Máquina de 32,000 Artículos Resumen La biología de la conservación se fundó a partir de la idea de que los esfuerzos para salvar a la naturaleza dependen del entendimiento científico de cómo funciona. La biología de la conservación buscaba aplicar los principios ecológicos a los problemas de conservación. En este trabajo investigamos si la relación entre estos ámbitos ha cambiado con el tiempo al realizar una lectura mediante máquina de 32,000 textos completos de artículos de investigación publicados en 16 revistas sobre ecología y biología de la conservación. También examinamos los cambios en los temas de investigación en ambos ámbitos y cómo éstos han evolucionado desde el año 2000 hasta el 2014. Conforme ha madurado la biología de la conservación, su enfoque se ha movido de los aspectos ecológicos de la conservación a los aspectos políticos y sociales. La ecología y la biología de la conservación se han separado y ahora ocupan nichos distintos dentro de la ciencia moderna. Nuestra hipótesis considera que este patrón resultó de incrementar el reconocimiento de que los factores sociales, económicos y políticos son muy importantes para una conservación exitosa. Posiblemente el patrón también proviene del creciente escepticismo acerca de la relevancia que la teoría ecológica contemporánea tiene para la conservación en práctica.

Recent developments in scholarly publishing to improve research practices in the life sciences.

We outline recent developments in scholarly publishing that we think will improve the working environment and career prospects for life scientists. Most prominently, we discuss two key developments. (1) Life scientists are now embracing a preprint culture leading to rapid dissemination of research findings. (2) We outline steps to overcome the reproducibility crisis. We also briefly describe other innovations in scholarly publishing, along with changes to open access mandates from funding agencies.

Ex situ conservation of plant diversity in the world's botanic gardens.

Botanic gardens conserve plant diversity ex situ and can prevent extinction through integrated conservation action. Here we quantify how that diversity is conserved in ex situ collections across the world's botanic gardens. We reveal that botanic gardens manage at least 105,634 species, equating to 30% of all plant species diversity, and conserve over 41% of known threatened species. However, we also reveal that botanic gardens are disproportionately temperate, with 93% of species held in the Northern Hemisphere. Consequently, an estimated 76% of species absent from living collections are tropical in origin. Furthermore, phylogenetic bias ensures that over 50% of vascular genera, but barely 5% of non-vascular genera, are conserved ex situ. While botanic gardens are discernibly responding to the threat of species extinction, just 10% of network capacity is devoted to threatened species. We conclude that botanic gardens play a fundamental role in plant conservation, but identify actions to enhance future conservation of biodiversity.

Sampling diverse characters improves phylogenies: Craniodental and postcranial characters of vertebrates often imply different trees.

Morphological cladograms of vertebrates are often inferred from greater numbers of characters describing the skull and teeth than from postcranial characters. This is either because the skull is believed to yield characters with a stronger phylogenetic signal (i.e., contain less homoplasy), because morphological variation therein is more readily atomized, or because craniodental material is more widely available (particularly in the palaeontological case). An analysis of 85 vertebrate datasets published between 2000 and 2013 confirms that craniodental characters are significantly more numerous than postcranial characters, but finds no evidence that levels of homoplasy differ in the two partitions. However, a new partition test, based on tree-to-tree distances (as measured by the Robinson Foulds metric) rather than tree length, reveals that relationships inferred from the partitions are significantly different about one time in three, much more often than expected. Such differences may reflect divergent selective pressures in different body regions, resulting in different localized patterns of homoplasy. Most systematists attempt to sample characters broadly across body regions, but this is not always possible. We conclude that trees inferred largely from either craniodental or postcranial characters in isolation may differ significantly from those that would result from a more holistic approach. We urge the latter.

Enriched biodiversity data as a resource and service.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen a surge in projects that produce large volumes of structured, machine-readable biodiversity data. To make these data amenable to processing by generic, open source "data enrichment" workflows, they are increasingly being represented in a variety of standards-compliant interchange formats. Here, we report on an initiative in which software developers and taxonomists came together to address the challenges and highlight the opportunities in the enrichment of such biodiversity data by engaging in intensive, collaborative software development: The Biodiversity Data Enrichment Hackathon. RESULTS: The hackathon brought together 37 participants (including developers and taxonomists, i.e. scientific professionals that gather, identify, name and classify species) from 10 countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the US. The participants brought expertise in processing structured data, text mining, development of ontologies, digital identification keys, geographic information systems, niche modeling, natural language processing, provenance annotation, semantic integration, taxonomic name resolution, web service interfaces, workflow tools and visualisation. Most use cases and exemplar data were provided by taxonomists. One goal of the meeting was to facilitate re-use and enhancement of biodiversity knowledge by a broad range of stakeholders, such as taxonomists, systematists, ecologists, niche modelers, informaticians and ontologists. The suggested use cases resulted in nine breakout groups addressing three main themes: i) mobilising heritage biodiversity knowledge; ii) formalising and linking concepts; and iii) addressing interoperability between service platforms. Another goal was to further foster a community of experts in biodiversity informatics and to build human links between research projects and institutions, in response to recent calls to further such integration in this research domain. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond deriving prototype solutions for each use case, areas of inadequacy were discussed and are being pursued further. It was striking how many possible applications for biodiversity data there were and how quickly solutions could be put together when the normal constraints to collaboration were broken down for a week. Conversely, mobilising biodiversity knowledge from their silos in heritage literature and natural history collections will continue to require formalisation of the concepts (and the links between them) that define the research domain, as well as increased interoperability between the software platforms that operate on these concepts.

Sharing and re-use of phylogenetic trees (and associated data) to facilitate synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, various evolution-related journals adopted policies to encourage or require archiving of phylogenetic trees and associated data. Such attention to practices that promote sharing of data reflects rapidly improving information technology, and rapidly expanding potential to use this technology to aggregate and link data from previously published research. Nevertheless, little is known about current practices, or best practices, for publishing trees and associated data so as to promote re-use. FINDINGS: Here we summarize results of an ongoing analysis of current practices for archiving phylogenetic trees and associated data, current practices of re-use, and current barriers to re-use. We find that the technical infrastructure is available to support rudimentary archiving, but the frequency of archiving is low. Currently, most phylogenetic knowledge is not easily re-used due to a lack of archiving, lack of awareness of best practices, and lack of community-wide standards for formatting data, naming entities, and annotating data. Most attempts at data re-use seem to end in disappointment. Nevertheless, we find many positive examples of data re-use, particularly those that involve customized species trees generated by grafting to, and pruning from, a much larger tree. CONCLUSIONS: The technologies and practices that facilitate data re-use can catalyze synthetic and integrative research. However, success will require engagement from various stakeholders including individual scientists who produce or consume shareable data, publishers, policy-makers, technology developers and resource-providers. The critical challenges for facilitating re-use of phylogenetic trees and associated data, we suggest, include: a broader commitment to public archiving; more extensive use of globally meaningful identifiers; development of user-friendly technology for annotating, submitting, searching, and retrieving data and their metadata; and development of a minimum reporting standard (MIAPA) indicating which kinds of data and metadata are most important for a re-useable phylogenetic record.