LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Julidochromis marksmithi, A New Species of Julidochromis from the Tanzanian Coast of Lake Tanganyika
December 20, 2014
11:59 pm
Avatar
Stefan
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1567
Member Since:
January 29, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Julidochromis marksmithi, A New Species of Julidochromis from the Tanzanian Coast of Lake Tanganyika

 

Tanganika Magazyn, 15: 40-49 (no online link)

December 21, 2014
12:17 am
Avatar
nuchal man
Member
Forum Posts: 137
Member Since:
February 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I would like to give this a read if anyone has it. On a side note, people really need to stop describing species in  non-peer reviewed journals and hobbyist magazines. 

December 21, 2014
4:30 pm
Avatar
Stefan
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1567
Member Since:
January 29, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You're very right! I'm pretty sure there's a rule against it?

December 22, 2014
6:06 pm
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

No such rules exist, what for should they. Science is free. Even in the best peer reviewed journals mistakes happen. There's no big difference between a good hobbyist journal and a scientific journal. The article itself makes the difference. Just read the rules: http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

December 25, 2014
3:26 am
Avatar
nuchal man
Member
Forum Posts: 137
Member Since:
February 9, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm not going to disagree that mistakes happen in even the best peer reviewed journals, they do, however, having it reviewed by reviewers who are competent and active in the field is a big difference than an editor for hobbyist journal especially in terms of weeding out bad taxonomy, methods, or lackluster diagnoses. I therefore disagree a lot about there being little difference between a good hobbyist and scientific journal. Being someone who has manuscripts in review at peer reviewed publication, it is not an easy or relatively fast process (and yes, sometimes you get bad reviewers who don't know their stuff). Although I don't to directly  work on taxonomy and do more phylogenetic and functional studies, I imagine that it is still pretty rigorous submitting it to a peer reviewed taxonomy journal.

Think about how many poor hobbyist descriptions there have been historically in aquarium literature over the years, there are many (there are some that are fine as well). That doesn't mean there aren't any really awful peer reviewed descriptions as well because there are, but a hobbyist magazine is less likely to have an editorial and review process that will have the manuscript looked at by individual reviewers who are active and and experienced taxonomists to see if the work is sound. There is also nothing stopping anyone from submitting their work to a peer reviewed journal.

January 2, 2015
9:54 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree with you Sam - many of the descriptions in hobbyist literature are also nigh on impossible to get hold of post-publication!

P.S. would also like to read the paper if anyone gets it.

Cake or death?
January 5, 2015
8:24 am
Avatar
Erwin
Member
Forum Posts: 22
Member Since:
March 10, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Folks, you simply do not look outside the box. Zoology is not only fish and there are not only aquarium fish, where many people know something about it. Just think about insects, there it may happen that there is only one expert in the whole world for a particular group. Who should review his work? But one must not go that far, even in fish, there are groups nobody works on them. I recently heard that the material of the first German deep-sea expedition (Valdivia) from 1898/1899 is still not fully processed, because experts are missing. Or have a look in Zootaxa, at present the most well-known journal, who is currently in charge of African freshwater fish? An editor for this section doesn't show up on their web page ( http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa.....isces.html ). The review in scientific journals refers often only to whether the rules are being followed or not. The actual content can not be judged by many reviewers.

January 5, 2015
12:28 pm
Avatar
coelacanth
Veteran
Forum Posts: 514
Member Since:
July 30, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Post-publication though, the material should ideally be easily available for other researchers and other interested parties. This is from a group of organisms where there's international trade, and much interest in new taxa by hobbyists at all levels of expertise, where species identification may be important in an environment of increasing legislation, and where's there's not really any justification for publishing in an obscure aquarium journal.

January 19, 2015
5:17 pm
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

coelacanth said
Post-publication though, the material should ideally be easily available for other researchers and other interested parties.

This is the problem for me, not the identity of the author or journal title.

Cake or death?
Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Desktop (1)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1257

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30518

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4603

Posts: 36641

Newest Members: Kevin20359, troides, noos, ziedive, wildfish007

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239