It is normal situation, especially in the taxonomy of the small groups of invertebrates. A low number of specialists around a World means that self-citations are inevitable. We know from the last year that it can be a problem for journals focused on taxonomy (the case of Zootaxa). What do you think, what we should to do with this? Any idea?
Another problem. As you know citations of the species descriptions (i.e. author of the species name) are often not included, similarly like authors of barcode sequences. Should we lobby for the citation of such works and sequences or not? And how to do it? When you are writing the papers do you cite such papers and sequences in the References? When you revise papers of other authors do you suggest to cite such papers and sequences in the References?
I'm very curious of your opinion.
I fully agree that studies on the biodiversity are one of the most important, and must be treated as 'top of the tops' under current circumstances and biological loss. The small groups are as important as the large ones, or even more. We are now suffering from effects of decline and discourage of taxonomy and focus on modern molecular approach as replacement for 'traditional' taxonomy and biodiversity studies. So the problem is wide and not a simple solution can resolve it.
Second point is putting in one bag for assessment wide variety of biological research - biomedical (with journals IF over 20 easy accessible for researchers), molecular and genetic engineering science publications (with easy acievement of IF = 10) to taxonomy with most journals IF =1. The point is 'modern' papers are cited intensively for short time (3 years as median time) - which leads to the effect of high IF in a short time scale as requested by analytical companies. Taxonomic papers are cited for over 250 years now (Linnaeus papers as base of modern taxonomy) so their long term impact is much higher than estimated by 5yr IF (most common long term index of journal quality).
Third point is 'taxonomic ignorance' in molecular approach (See Lis JA et al. 2008), almost nothing changed since then.
Fourth question is how to tweak of the analytical companies algorithms to be more reliable. These must be more sensitive for taxonomic papers on one hand and be able to recognize and eliminate bulky self-citations not related to taxa and taxonomic names. And yes, lobbying is necessary in this case.
In many palaeontological journals it is obligatory to cite all authors of names with papers listed in references (it is even recommendation of ICZN), but it is often ignored or not allowed by the journals limits of cited papers, or push to obscure supplementary materials never cited.
A recent article in Nature has tried to address this issue. I think it is a good start
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01359-y
Chan Kin Onn thanks for this note. It is really interesting and I totally agree with the conclusions of the authors of this short note. We need to fight to be cited properly by other biologists and in all journals!
This is what I'm doing when I'm publishing my papers. I always cite all the species names with author/s and year and laiter cite it in References.
The problem lies in parsing out true citations vs. those made to boost journal metrics. It becomes problematic when both scenarios are conflated, such as what happened to Zootaxa. The number crunchers at analytical companies don't understand research. All they look at are numbers. Perhaps they should higher or consult more researchers and tweak their algorithm
Chan Kin Onn yes it is a problem but I'm not sure if such algorithms are able to write. I do not think so. Maybe it is better to use only numbers even they are not perfect?
As you say, it is difficult not to self-citation in a small group of organisms, but I am not sure if the journal is the one who should modify the algorithm or change its rules for the descriptions of species of the groups in which a smaller number of specialists reside.
The diversity of subjects of research is increasing day by day as the diversity of sciences. It is a pity to put all sciences in the same cauldron and to judge them with only one set of rules. This is another way to discourage the "small research". I call it small research if is not in the "top of the tops".
So, here we need to make a lobby to can do our research and to publish it. It is pity to compare genetic engineering science publications (IF = 8-9) to taxonomy of small and economically inert group of organisms, when we barely obtain 0.8 IF.
If I record a new species and publish it, then I do studies about its ecology and biology, even the surviving capacity in the new territory, I cannot cite my previous work? We need to have a word in enrighting the persons who judge our works.
I agree with all of you. I think that studies on the diversity are one of the most important. We need to know and understand what we have on the planet before we lose these species. Especially that every day we lose a lot of species and we even do not know them.
I fully agree that studies on the biodiversity are one of the most important, and must be treated as 'top of the tops' under current circumstances and biological loss. The small groups are as important as the large ones, or even more. We are now suffering from effects of decline and discourage of taxonomy and focus on modern molecular approach as replacement for 'traditional' taxonomy and biodiversity studies. So the problem is wide and not a simple solution can resolve it.
Second point is putting in one bag for assessment wide variety of biological research - biomedical (with journals IF over 20 easy accessible for researchers), molecular and genetic engineering science publications (with easy acievement of IF = 10) to taxonomy with most journals IF =1. The point is 'modern' papers are cited intensively for short time (3 years as median time) - which leads to the effect of high IF in a short time scale as requested by analytical companies. Taxonomic papers are cited for over 250 years now (Linnaeus papers as base of modern taxonomy) so their long term impact is much higher than estimated by 5yr IF (most common long term index of journal quality).
Third point is 'taxonomic ignorance' in molecular approach (See Lis JA et al. 2008), almost nothing changed since then.
Fourth question is how to tweak of the analytical companies algorithms to be more reliable. These must be more sensitive for taxonomic papers on one hand and be able to recognize and eliminate bulky self-citations not related to taxa and taxonomic names. And yes, lobbying is necessary in this case.
In many palaeontological journals it is obligatory to cite all authors of names with papers listed in references (it is even recommendation of ICZN), but it is often ignored or not allowed by the journals limits of cited papers, or push to obscure supplementary materials never cited.
You address the problem correct: it is currently not possible to judge self-citation from numbers and metrics alone. Sometimes self-citation is an indicator of persistence, which some groups really need in a taxonomic sense. Good, thorough reviews are the solution there, which cannot really be measured. So perhaps simply accept a certain level of self citation?
It can be difficult not to self cite even in large groups, if you happen to be one of the few doing large portions of the taxonomic research. There are some 600 turtle researchers world wide but only 20 odd doing cutting edge taxonomy. As I went through and described multiple taxa from the same genus or family over a series of papers it was essential to cite the previous papers. However, personally I think these metrics need to go. But that is unlikely as the bean counters at Universities use the metrics to ascertain contribution levels, Taxonomy needs to be excluded largely from this process. In a time when journals require sort succinct papers I am not going to re-describe 200 characters when I can cite the fist time I did it just to avoid citing myself.
Jacek Szwedo I fully agree with you. And we all, taxonomists, need to fight for citations of the species. For example me. I always cite all the authors of the species which I list in my papers. Also in physiological or molecular papers. I always cite the species. Often reviewers or editor suggest that such citations are not necessary but I always say the same. I need to cite the author of the species because is the same type of citation as others. I will do it even I need to cite very old species also those of Linneaus! But many of us (taxonomists) ignore it and agree to to cite the species :(
Scott Thomson of course I agree with you that you do not need to cite yourself but what about the situation if you are preparing a checklist and most of the species were described by you?
Barry Van Bakel of course I agree with you that in taxonomy self-citations are not a problem and in general it is quite easy to eliminate "wrong selfciting". In many causes also reviewers do it.
Łukasz Kaczmarek I meant its often more appropriate to cite myself than repeat the same data over and over across papers. In answer to your question yes I already prepare checklists and this does require considerable self citation. Also if I describe more species or genus group names from groups I have already published on I would be remiss not to cite the papers that described other taxa that are related to the one I am now describing. I think once you get past describing two or three taxa you cannot write without citing yourself.
The problem is the few specialists that exist in the study of these groups, generally a well-versed taxonomist and inserted in a university or research center, is usually productive in the description of species, as there are a couple or fewer of people who can carry out their job. For this reason, the next solution is to devote more time to the formation of new taxonomists that are dedicated to the description of species, in itself, there are two problems.
1.- The null interest of governments in biodiversity
2.- The little interest of many taxonomists in training new students in the area.
Osmar Roberto Araujo-Leyva
3. The little interest of students in learning taxonomy.
Very sad, but we have to admit that, too.
So badly, taxonomy is very hard for the students, only they who are very passionate will struggle to learn it. And now, it is discouraged by the political. How to work in taxonomy, when the funding is poor, the dedicated journals barely reach IF 1. How passionate should we be to can carry such a bargain?
The rich passionate amateurs will have a better contribution than the poor professionals.
Scott Thomson
I fully agree with you. The self citations just appear in such cases. And you can not do nothing with it. In my opinion this is not a problem, science should just accept it.
Osmar Roberto Araujo-Leyva
Lisa Schüler
Yes it is a huge problem. For most of the students such research are boring and it is hard to explain how such studies are important. Now only molecular biology, biotechnology or something similar is interesting for people.
The other problem is biodiversity and funding of such research. In tropics or polar regions it is still possible to get money for such studies but in other regions it is not so easy.
Łukasz Kaczmarek
Lisa Schüler
Yes as both mentioned, the educational system has been changed in the last decade this has led to a null interest in the new students for the taxonomy. However and only talking for Mexico, I observe how the specialist is jealous and they deny teaching, the two factors merge in a vicious circle.
Thanks for your reply
Osmar Roberto Araujo-Leyva jealous? about what? I do not understand?
Łukasz Kaczmarek
Work and position mainly, that's why they refuse to teach. As I mentioned, I only speak about my experience in Mexico.
I always cite authors of sequences and I wonder why people cite genebank only, whereas the sequences are actually the results obtained by certain researchers. You are right, we should mention this when we review a MS! Sometimes I forget to do this.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers