Zoological nomenclature in the digital era

Creation and use of the scientific names of animals are ruled by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Until recently, publication of new names in a work produced with ink on paper was required for their availability. A long awaited amendment to the Code issued in September 2012 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature now allows publication of new names in online-only works, provided that the latter are registered with ZooBank, the Official Register of Animal Names. With this amendment, the rules of zoological nomenclature have been aligned with the opportunities (and needs) of our digital era. However, possible causes for nomenclatural instability remain. These could be completely removed if the Code-compliant publication of new names will be identified with their online registration, under suitable technological and formal (legal) conditions. Future developments of the ZooBank may provide the tool required to make this definitive leap ahead in zoological nomenclature.     

EDITORIAL

With the debut of the much anticipated CURRENT ZOOLOGY,a historical move has been made after years of hesi-tation and preparation.This metamorphosis of the flagship journal of the Chinese Zoological Society from the bilingual Ac-ta Zoologica Sinica to the all-English CURRENT ZOOLOGY reminds me of this flagship journal at its inception in 1935 ,which was called The     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

A statement on ethics from the HEART Group

Over the past several years, the editors of leading international cardiovascular journals have met to form the HEART Group and to discuss areas of growing, common interest. Recently, the HEART Group has developed a document that addresses general ethical principles in the conduct of the scientific process with which all of the editors concur. Published essentially simultaneously in all of the participating journals, including this journal, this document presents the ethical tenets accepted by all of the undersigned editors that will (continue to) guide their decisions in the editorial process.     

Behavior research in zoos: Past,present, and future

This paper reviews the historical emphases in zoo behavioral research and the contribution of these studies to animal management and to advancement in the behavioral sciences. Some examples are provided from research conducted at the National Zoological Park and elsewhere. The potential for doing behavior studies of excellence in zoos and aquariums has become more complicated in recent years by 1) changes in the aims and objectives of modern zoological parks, especially the increasing emphasis on conservation, 2) changes in focus in the science of animal behavior itself, and 3) the tendency of trained behaviorists to assume positions as curators and directors without time for research. These issues represent challenges to be overcome so that zoos can continue to be important sites for the study of animal behavior and contribute to the science of animal management and conservation, as well as the advancement of theory in biology. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Unsafe management of a zoological garden as a cause of introduction of an alien species into the wild: First documented case of feral naturalized population of Lama glama in Europe

Zoological gardens host large numbers of wild species and domestic forms, mostly not indigenous to the place where the zoological garden is located. Escapes (or releases) from zoological gardens are recognized as a pathway of introduction of alien species, leading in some cases to a naturalized population. Although previously reported worldwide, scientific accounts of escapes from zoos are rare and often anecdotal. In this note, we document, for the first time in Europe and, to our knowledge, in an area outside its native range, a case of introduction and establishment of a feral population of Llama (Lama glama), originating from a group of animals living in captivity at the Zoological Park of Cavriglia (Tuscany, central Italy). We reconstruct in detail the story of the population since 1974, also reporting preliminary data on abundance, distribution and diet. Finally, we critically evaluate the causes of this introduction, highlighting how unsafe the management of a zoological garden can be, and we discuss the implications for conservation and management perspectives.     

The risk of zoological parks as potential pathways for the introduction of non-indigenous species

Zoological parks have been associated with an increasingly frequent origin for accidentally released animal species. Such species have become invasive in some cases. The goals of this study are to evaluate the risk of potential animal escape at zoological parks by assessing the security of animal enclosures, and to identify which factors could be affecting such security. We visited a random sample of 1,568 animal enclosures belonging to 63 Spanish zoological parks, and assessed their security with a defined criteria based on the suitability of the physical barrier of the enclosure and the impossibility for the public to release the animals. To our criteria, we found 221 enclosures which were non-secure against animal escape. Such enclosures were unevenly distributed among 47 zoological parks (74.60% of the sample), and housed non-indigenous species in 79.64% of the cases (21 species listed by the European Inventory of Invasive Species). Seven factors were analyzed to assess their effect on enclosure security. Six of them were found to have an effect, and three were selected by a logistic regression model as the main predictors for secure enclosures. Such factors are discussed, and measures are suggested to reduce the risk of zoological parks as a potential pathway for the introduction of non-indigenous species.     

Editorial: First Issue

‘ANIMAL – An International Journal of Animal Bioscience’ is the central element in a new and exciting collaborative venture between the European Federation for Animal Science (EAAP), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), and British Society of Animal Science (BSAS). It merges three high-quality and successful journals (Animal Science, Animal Research and Reproduction, Nutrition, Development) into a single forward-looking publication that will reduce fragmentation in the sector, improve synergies and, we hope, act as a catalyst for integrating process-level and systems science in the animal biosciences.     

A Space of One’s Own: Barbosa du Bocage,the Foundation of the National Museum of Lisbon,and the Construction of a Career in Zoology (1851–1907)

This paper discusses the life and scientific work of José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage (1823–1907), a nineteenth-century Portuguese naturalist who carved a new place for zoological research in Portugal and built up a prestigious scientific career by securing appropriate physical and institutional spaces to the discipline. Although he was appointed professor of zoology at the Lisbon Polytechnic School, an institution mainly devoted to the preparatory training of military officers and engineers, he succeeded in creating the conditions that allowed him to develop consistent research in zoology at this institution. Taking advantage of the reconstruction and further improvement of the building of the Lisbon Polytechnic, following a violent fire in 1843, Bocage transferred a natural history museum formerly located at the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon to his institution, where he conquered a more prestigious place for zoology. Although successive governments were unwilling to meet Bocage’s ambitions for the Zoological Section of the newly created National Museum of Lisbon, the collaborators he found in different parts of the Portuguese continental territory and colonial empire supplied him the specimens he needed to make a career as a naturalist. Bocage ultimately became a renowned specialist in Southwestern African fauna thanks to José de Anchieta, his finest collaborator. Travels to foreign museums, and the establishment of links with the international community of zoologists, proved fundamental to build up Bocage’s national and international scientific reputation, as it will be exemplified by the discussion of his discovery of Hyalonema, a specimen with a controversial identity collected off the Portuguese coast.     

Biophysical Highlights from 54 Years of Macromolecular Crystallography

The United Nations has declared 2014 the International Year of Crystallography, and in commemoration, this review features a selection of 54 notable macromolecular crystal structures that have illuminated the field of biophysics in the 54 years since the first excitement of the myoglobin and hemoglobin structures in 1960. Chronological by publication of the earliest solved structure, each illustrated entry briefly describes key concepts or methods new at the time and key later work leveraged by knowledge of the three-dimensional atomic structure.     

The Dynamic Interest in Topics within the Biomedical Scientific Community

The increase in the size of the scientific community created an explosion in scientific production. We have analyzed the dynamics of biomedical scientific output during 1957–2007 by applying a bibliometric analysis of the PubMed database using different keywords representing specific biomedical topics. With the assumption that increased scientific interest will result in increased scientific output, we compared the output of specific topics to that of all scientific output. This analysis resulted in three broad categories of topics; those that follow the general trend of all scientific output, those that show highly variable output, and attractive topics which are new and grow explosively. The analysis of the citation impact of the scientific output resulted in a typical longtail distribution: the majority of journals and articles are of very low impact. This distribution has remained unchanged since 1957, although the interests of scientists must have shifted in this period. We therefore analyzed the distribution of articles in top journals and lower impact journals over time for the attractive topics. Novelty is rewarded by publication in top journals. Over time more articles are published in low impact journals progressively creating the longtail distribution, signifying acceptance of the topic by the community. There can be a gap of years between novelty and acceptance. Within topics temporary novelty is created with new subtopics. In conclusion, the longtail distribution is the foundation of the scientific output of the scientific community and can be used to examine different aspects of science practice.     

The Golden Anniversary of the Society of Protozoologists (1947-1997)1

ABSTRACT The history of the Society of Protozoologists is traced from its birth, half a century ago, to the present time. Emphasis is placed on events of the formative years, since data from the scattered records and memories of those times need to be assembled in one place before they are entirely forgotten or “misremembered.” As is true in the establishment of any new association, the people involved are responsible for its later success. Thus tribute is especially paid to the original founding fathers and the early charter members who worked so hard and so unselfishly to assure the permanence—and long—lasting usefulness-of their Society in a specialized branch of biology. An obvious value of a new scientific organization lies in its production of a scholarly journal. In the present case, such a publication was launched early, and it rapidly became known worldwide as a protozoological research outlet of the highest quality. The aims and goals of the founders seem to have been well met over the past 50 years, but the international Society of Protozoologists faces new challenges and obligations in the years ahead.     

Solutions to the New Threats to Academic Freedom?

In my commentary on Francesca Minerva's article ‘New Threats to Academic Freedom’, I agree with her contention that the existence of the Internet has given rise to new and very serious threats to academic freedom. I think that it is crucial that we confront those threats, and find ways to eliminate them, which I believe can be done. The threats in question involve both authors and editors. In the case of authors, I argue that the best solution is not anonymous publication, but publication using pseudonyms, and I describe how that would work. In the case of editors, my proposal is a website that a number of journals would have access to, where papers that editors judge to be clearly worthy of publication, but whose publication seems likely to set off a firestorm of public and media protest, could be published without any indication of the journal that had accepted the paper for publication.     

Bulletin of mathematical biology—facts,figures and comparisons

The Society for Mathematical Biology (SMB) owns the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology (BMB). This is an international journal devoted to the interface of mathematics and biology. At the 2003 SMB annual meeting in Dundee the Society asked the editor of the BMB to produce an analysis of impact factor, subject matter of papers, submission rates etc. Other members of the society were interested in the handling times of articles and wanted comparisons with other (appropriate) journals. In this article we present a brief history of the journal and report on how the journal impact factor has grown substantially in the last few years. We also present an analysis of subject areas of published papers over the past two years. We finally present data on times from receipt of paper to acceptance, acceptance to print (and to online publication) and compare these data with some other journals. This is an expanded version of a report published in the Society for Mathematical Biology Newsletter, Volume 16, Number 3, pp. 9–12, 2003. These authors contributed equally.     

Introducing "Frontiers in Zoology"

As a biological discipline, zoology has one of the longest histories. Today it occasionally appears as though, due to the rapid expansion of life sciences, zoology has been replaced by more or less independent sub-disciplines amongst which exchange is often sparse. However, the recent advance of molecular methodology into "classical" fields of biology, and the development of theories that can explain phenomena on different levels of organisation, has led to a re-integration of zoological disciplines promoting a broader than usual approach to zoological questions. Zoology has re-emerged as an integrative discipline encompassing the most diverse aspects of animal life, from the level of the gene to the level of the ecosystem.The new journal Frontiers in Zoology is the first Open Access journal focussing on zoology as a whole. It aims to represent and re-unite the various disciplines that look at animal life from different perspectives and at providing the basis for a comprehensive understanding of zoological phenomena on all levels of analysis. Frontiers in Zoology provides a unique opportunity to publish high quality research and reviews on zoological issues that will be internationally accessible to any reader at no cost.     

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship.