Cargando…

A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature

Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really suc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steiner, Florian M., Pautasso, Marco, Zettel, Herbert, Moder, Karl, Arthofer, Wolfgang, Schlick-Steiner, Birgit C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25944475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syv026
_version_ 1782386048997785600
author Steiner, Florian M.
Pautasso, Marco
Zettel, Herbert
Moder, Karl
Arthofer, Wolfgang
Schlick-Steiner, Birgit C.
author_facet Steiner, Florian M.
Pautasso, Marco
Zettel, Herbert
Moder, Karl
Arthofer, Wolfgang
Schlick-Steiner, Birgit C.
author_sort Steiner, Florian M.
collection PubMed
description Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really such a citation impediment in taxonomy? We compared the citation numbers of 306 taxonomic and 2291 non-taxonomic research articles (2009–2012) on mosses, orchids, ciliates, ants, and snakes, using Web of Science (WoS) and correcting for journal visibility. For three of the five taxa, significant differences were absent in citation numbers between taxonomic and non-taxonomic papers. This was also true for all taxa combined, although taxonomic papers received more citations than non-taxonomic ones. Our results show that, contrary to common belief, taxonomic contributions do not generally reduce a journal's citation performance and might even increase it. The scope of many journals rarely featuring taxonomy would allow editors to encourage a larger number of taxonomic submissions. Moreover, between 1993 and 2012, taxonomic publications accumulated faster than those from all biological fields. However, less than half of the taxonomic studies were published in journals in WoS. Thus, editors of highly visible journals inviting taxonomic contributions could benefit from taxonomy's strong momentum. The taxonomic output could increase even more than at its current growth rate if: (i) taxonomists currently publishing on other topics returned to taxonomy and (ii) non-taxonomists identifying the need for taxonomic acts started publishing these, possibly in collaboration with taxonomists. Finally, considering the high number of taxonomic papers attracted by the journal Zootaxa, we expect that the taxonomic community would indeed use increased chances of publishing in WoS indexed journals. We conclude that taxonomy's standing in the present citation-focused scientific landscape could easily improve—if the community becomes aware that there is no citation impediment in taxonomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4538880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45388802015-08-18 A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature Steiner, Florian M. Pautasso, Marco Zettel, Herbert Moder, Karl Arthofer, Wolfgang Schlick-Steiner, Birgit C. Syst Biol Points of View Current science evaluation still relies on citation performance, despite criticisms of purely bibliometric research assessments. Biological taxonomy suffers from a drain of knowledge and manpower, with poor citation performance commonly held as one reason for this impediment. But is there really such a citation impediment in taxonomy? We compared the citation numbers of 306 taxonomic and 2291 non-taxonomic research articles (2009–2012) on mosses, orchids, ciliates, ants, and snakes, using Web of Science (WoS) and correcting for journal visibility. For three of the five taxa, significant differences were absent in citation numbers between taxonomic and non-taxonomic papers. This was also true for all taxa combined, although taxonomic papers received more citations than non-taxonomic ones. Our results show that, contrary to common belief, taxonomic contributions do not generally reduce a journal's citation performance and might even increase it. The scope of many journals rarely featuring taxonomy would allow editors to encourage a larger number of taxonomic submissions. Moreover, between 1993 and 2012, taxonomic publications accumulated faster than those from all biological fields. However, less than half of the taxonomic studies were published in journals in WoS. Thus, editors of highly visible journals inviting taxonomic contributions could benefit from taxonomy's strong momentum. The taxonomic output could increase even more than at its current growth rate if: (i) taxonomists currently publishing on other topics returned to taxonomy and (ii) non-taxonomists identifying the need for taxonomic acts started publishing these, possibly in collaboration with taxonomists. Finally, considering the high number of taxonomic papers attracted by the journal Zootaxa, we expect that the taxonomic community would indeed use increased chances of publishing in WoS indexed journals. We conclude that taxonomy's standing in the present citation-focused scientific landscape could easily improve—if the community becomes aware that there is no citation impediment in taxonomy. Oxford University Press 2015-09 2015-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4538880/ /pubmed/25944475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syv026 Text en © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Points of View
Steiner, Florian M.
Pautasso, Marco
Zettel, Herbert
Moder, Karl
Arthofer, Wolfgang
Schlick-Steiner, Birgit C.
A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
title A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
title_full A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
title_fullStr A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
title_full_unstemmed A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
title_short A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
title_sort falsification of the citation impediment in the taxonomic literature
topic Points of View
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25944475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syv026
work_keys_str_mv AT steinerflorianm afalsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT pautassomarco afalsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT zettelherbert afalsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT moderkarl afalsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT arthoferwolfgang afalsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT schlicksteinerbirgitc afalsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT steinerflorianm falsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT pautassomarco falsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT zettelherbert falsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT moderkarl falsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT arthoferwolfgang falsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature
AT schlicksteinerbirgitc falsificationofthecitationimpedimentinthetaxonomicliterature