Message 2003-10-0007: Re: And now my quarterly nitpicking...

Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:58:02 +0200

[Previous by date - Fwd: And now my quarterly nitpicking...]
[Next by date - Article 11 (and 13, and 17, and 18)]
[Previous by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume? (short!)]
[Next by subject - Re: Animal 'bar codes' to take over from Latin names]

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:58:02 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PML <>
Subject: Re: And now my quarterly nitpicking...

> Perhaps other members of the advisory group will respond as well, but
> the reason I favor peer review as a requirement for publishing names
> and definitions is that good phylogenetic definitions are difficult
> to formulate.  It is easy to make mistakes in the wording of
> definitions that the author and the systematic community regret later.

OK. Sounds good.

> I am surprised to read that "many journals are not peer-reviewed."
> It is my impression that most reputable journals are peer-reviewed,

I have been to the biosciences library today. It turns out many journals
don't tell if they're peer-reviewed. Springer journals talk about "the
review process" but don't indicate if perhaps just the editors do this.
Judging from past discussions about this article on this list, peer-review
seems to be a US-centered phenomenon.

In any case, Art. 4 should state that the precise paper/chapter in question
must be peer-reviewed. There are journals which only occasionally publish
peer-reviewed articles (e. g. the Dinosaur Society "Quarterly"), and there
are journals run by societies in which articles by society members are not

> Also, the International Society
> for Phylogenetic Nomenclature (which will be inaugurated in Paris
> next summer) may want to create a journal dedicated to publishing
> names and definitions if PhyloCode users are having trouble finding
> peer-reviewed outlets for their papers.

This is a good idea.


Feedback to <> is welcome!