Has taxonomic vandalism gone too far? A case study, the rise of the pay‑to‑publish model and the pitfalls of Morchella systematics

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985831%3A_____%2F22%3A00554815" target="_blank" >RIV/67985831:_____/22:00554815 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://link.springer.com/journal/11557/volumes-and-issues/21-1" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/journal/11557/volumes-and-issues/21-1</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11557-021-01755-z" target="_blank" >10.1007/s11557-021-01755-z</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Has taxonomic vandalism gone too far? A case study, the rise of the pay‑to‑publish model and the pitfalls of Morchella systematics

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The genus Morchella has gone through turbulent taxonomic treatments. Although significant progress in Morchella systematics has been achieved in the past decade, several problems remain unresolved and taxonomy in the genus is still in flux. In late 2019, a paper published in the open-access journal Scientific Reports raised serious concerns about the taxonomic stability of the genus, but also about the future of academic publishing. The paper, entitled “High diversity of Morchella and a novel lineage of the esculenta clade from the north Qinling Mountains revealed by GCPSR-based study” by Phanpadith and colleagues, suffered from gross methodological errors, included false results and artifactual phylogenies, had misapplied citations throughout, and proposed a new species name invalidly. Although the paper was eventually retracted by Scientific Reports in 2021, the fact that such an overtly flawed and scientifically unsound paper was published in a high-ranked Q1 journal raises alarming questions about quality controls and safekeeping procedures in scholarly publishing. Using this paper as a case study, we provide a critical review on the pitfalls of Morchella systematics followed by a series of recommendations for the delimitation of species, description of taxa, and ultimately for a sustainable taxonomy in Morchella. Problems and loopholes in the academic publishing system are also identified and discussed, and additional quality controls in the pre- and post-publication stages are proposed.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Has taxonomic vandalism gone too far? A case study, the rise of the pay‑to‑publish model and the pitfalls of Morchella systematics

Popis výsledku anglicky

The genus Morchella has gone through turbulent taxonomic treatments. Although significant progress in Morchella systematics has been achieved in the past decade, several problems remain unresolved and taxonomy in the genus is still in flux. In late 2019, a paper published in the open-access journal Scientific Reports raised serious concerns about the taxonomic stability of the genus, but also about the future of academic publishing. The paper, entitled “High diversity of Morchella and a novel lineage of the esculenta clade from the north Qinling Mountains revealed by GCPSR-based study” by Phanpadith and colleagues, suffered from gross methodological errors, included false results and artifactual phylogenies, had misapplied citations throughout, and proposed a new species name invalidly. Although the paper was eventually retracted by Scientific Reports in 2021, the fact that such an overtly flawed and scientifically unsound paper was published in a high-ranked Q1 journal raises alarming questions about quality controls and safekeeping procedures in scholarly publishing. Using this paper as a case study, we provide a critical review on the pitfalls of Morchella systematics followed by a series of recommendations for the delimitation of species, description of taxa, and ultimately for a sustainable taxonomy in Morchella. Problems and loopholes in the academic publishing system are also identified and discussed, and additional quality controls in the pre- and post-publication stages are proposed.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10612 - Mycology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Mycological Progress

ISSN

1617-416X

e-ISSN

1861-8952

Svazek periodika

21

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

32

Strana od-do

7-38

Kód UT WoS článku

000764882000002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85126109523