(377–378) Proposals to improve the indexing and exchange of digital nomenclatural data

Abstract

The use of agreed-upon standards is one of the foundations of effective scientific communication. In some cases, those standards come about organically as researchers converge on a set of best practices. In other cases, standards may need to be rigorously imposed in order to guarantee adherence. Both examples exist in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (“Code”; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) and either might be applied in the case under discussion. In addition, there is precedence in the Code for recommending certain “identifiers” meant to stand in for richer data. See for example, Rec. 46A Note 1, which recommends using standard forms for the authors of plant names. Even more directly applicable is Art. 40 Note 4, which recommends the use of standard herbarium codes when citing institutions. These codes are widely used in digital datasets to unambiguously identify where a specimen resides. A precise statement of the problem we are trying to solve is important here, because it is clear to us that at least three issues are involved: registration, indexing and data exchange. When we discuss this topic with our peers, we find that these issues are often conflated, while in our minds they must be discussed separately. Registration as an end unto itself (i.e. as a way to block “bad” names from ever being published) has been summarily rejected by the botanical community and need not be discussed further. However, registration is now offered as a way to achieve two other, more desirable goals – namely rapid indexing and efficient data exchange. It should be pointed out that both indexing and data exchange are already occurring in the absence of registration of plant names. The merits of registration can therefore only be considered in the context of its marginal improvement upon these two activities and must be weighed against the extra overhead it introduces to the process. Advocates of mandatory proactive registration suggest that it will improve indexing by either (1) alerting human indexers to the imminent publication of a name, or (2) allowing the AI robots of the future to identify and flag new names in digital (and digitized) publications. Arguments that claim mandatory proactive registration will entirely solve the indexing problem are misguided. That is because the most important data needed by the indexers cannot be required at the time of proactive registration and in most cases are beyond the control of the authors anyway. As indexers and authors, we must already visit and revisit these data at least twice in the case of many electronic publications. First, when the version of record appears and again when it gains final pagination. To add yet another layer on top of this does not make the process any easier and only introduces more opportunities for error. Furthermore, while these potential new names may be known to the registrar, they cannot be released to the public until the version of record has in fact been effectively published. Because that is the point where indexing would normally proceed anyway, any advantage gained by proactive registration is minimal. Indexers often face the problem of clarifying to users how to provide feedback, updates and new data to the system. The General Committee could improve the situation immensely by authorizing recognized repositories for these data and encouraging botanists to provide those repositories with the information required to properly index names and other nomenclatural acts. The International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) could also play a significant role by communicating the importance of timely indexing to its members and by providing logistical support to facilitate this process. Most authors want wider visibility for their work, and getting their names indexed and connected to the digital infrastructure is an effective way to achieve that. There has never been an “official” way to do this for plant names, and botani