F.M. Steiner et al. 2015. A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature
Florian M. Steiner, Marco Pautasso,
Herbert Zettel, Karl Moder, Wolfgang Arthofer and Birgit C. Schlick-Steiner. 2015.
A Falsification of the Citation Impediment in the Taxonomic Literature.
Systematic Biology, 2015, Volume 64. Issue 5. Pp. 860-868.
Institutions of authors:
Molecular Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck,
Technikerstr. 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Forest Pathology and Dendrology, Institute of Integrative Biology, ETHZ,
Universitätstr. 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Animal and Plant Health Unit, European Food Safety Authority, via Carlo Magno 1a, 43126 Parma, Italy
2nd Zoological Department, Natural History Museum Vienna, Burgring 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria
Institute of Applied Statistics and Computing, University of Natural
Resources and Life Sciences, Peter Jordan-Str. 82, 1180 Vienna, Austria
Correspondence to be sent to: Molecular Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology,
University of Innsbruck, Technikerstr. 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria;
E-mail: florian.m.steiner{at}uibk.ac.at
Abstract
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.
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.