University of Alaska Museum Department of Ornithology

Time 2021-01-03 11:03:58

Web Name: University of Alaska Museum Department of Ornithology

WebSite: http://www.universityofalaskamuseumbirds.org

ID:155142

Keywords:

Alaska,of,University,

Description:

(Our discipline s flagship journals are considering a name change after more than a century of success and global recognition. I am opposed, because the potential gains are illusory. A survey [now closed] on this is available here.)I am glad to have the opportunity to submit some comments on the American Ornithological Society s (AOS) Publications Futures Committee’s interim report. Having been on the publications committee and on Council in the past, I know the hard work and passion that members put into this on a volunteer basis. I appreciate those efforts. This is why the Auk and Condor are leading journals in our field. However, you can count me among those AOS member who would feel alienated from the society by changing the journal names. I think it needlessly distances ourselves from our longstanding successes and our strong history, and it does not offer clear, concrete gains. Below are some of the details behind my thinking.In reading the interim report I felt that some key aspects of journal impact factors (IFs) were missing. Several important things stick out: 1) There is an IF ceiling for taxon-specific journals. Although it is a flexible ceiling, it is not greatly expandable. Changing the name of the Auk or Condor can’t change this phenomenon. Only breaking out of being a taxon-specific journal could potentially do this, and in a highly competitive interdisciplinary environment that would not be a good move, particularly given the mission of the society. Because we are already a sector leader, there is very little upward mobility possible.2) The well-understood phenomenon of IF inflation is not mentioned. But it is likely that both the Auk and Condor have experienced this along with other science journals (see data in the report and Larivière and Sugimoto 2018). The goal of a modest increase to 3.0 will likely be accomplished simply by staying the course (though I support several of the recommendations; more below). 3) Authors using IF to decide where to submit their papers are rolling the dice against heavy odds. Larivière and Sugimoto (2018) showed that for four journals in the biological sciences less than 30% of individual authors obtain a citation rate equal to or higher than the journal IF. Their summary is that “Given that less than a third of articles are likely to achieve the citation value of the JIF, the indicator is misleading for application at the individual level.” My own analysis (Winker 2011) showed no correlation between journal IF and numbers of citations, suggesting that other factors are far more important. The social factor of IFs—the journal marquee or venue, if you will—remain important, but in my analysis I recommended using IFs only on an order-of-magnitude scale (Winker 2011). In this respect, from the journal perspective maintaining our position among the top few journals in our discipline is our maximum achievable goal. Being there already indicates that tweaks, rather than full makeovers, are what is needed. From the author’s perspective, journal IF is a decidedly poor metric for individuals, and authors are beginning to recognize this. 4) The citation counts that are so critical to IF values are highly skewed, hugely affected by a small number of high-impact papers. If we try to treat this as a normally distributed problem we will fail. Trying to change Impact Factor (IF) through mass psychology effort (e.g., journal name changes) is not likely to be very fruitful unless you are a lower-tier journal. There are easier and more incisive methods (e.g., Chawla 2018, Larivière and Sugimoto 2018). Recommendations 1.1 to 1.3 in the report (getting higher-impact papers) are sufficient and will work.5) Comparison of IFs between disciplines is not considered best practice. Thus, Table 4 is problematic (Table 1 is not; those are our real competitors). The journals in Table 4 are not competitor journals in the sense presented: their missions are each different than ours and their audience and potential author pools are much broader. Yes, they might compete with us for some of our authors’ papers, but that is true of all better-ranked journals outside of our core discipline, and these will always exist, leaving us to chase these other entities forever and never catch them. Focusing on these is a fool’s errand. What it takes to be the top in our discipline is well in hand with Recommendations 1.1 through 1.3 (getting higher-impact papers). Finally, on IFs, its two-year basis is a shortcoming for journals like ours with very long half-lives. While I am glad to see consideration of the 5-yr IF in the report, for an author’s career and h-index the half-life might have greater relevance and be a stronger selling point. Generating more citations over a longer period than you can get with a journal with a short half life should be attractive in our discipline.The name change over 25 years ago for Ornis Scandinavica is not comparable and is thus almost irrelevant. That change moved the journal both clearly to English (for authors not members of the society) and to an international constituency, both of which the Auk and Condor already have. I would point to this case as an example of how a lower-tier journal can successfully do a makeover but then hit the same disciplinary ceiling that the Auk and Condor are already so close to. I can guarantee you we will not experience a similar boost; in fact, any boost would probably not be detectable from expected ongoing IF inflation. The argument that evaluation committees don’t know the stature of the journal might have been somewhat relevant two and three decades ago—although my discussions then with folks being evaluated e.g., for tenure, suggested to me that this was not a predominant experience. However, the lingua franca of IFs has rendered this largely immaterial. In my experience, evaluating committees routinely consider IF values today in their assessments, a necessary tool in an era of seemingly rapid increases in number of journal titles and our need to evaluate diverse faculty and applicants for positions and promotions (together with other data, of course). Ornithologists who perceive this as a potential problem have only to provide journal IF values in their CVs and cover material. And in this era of an explosion of new titles across biology, this is a useful move no matter what a journal’s name.Journal title is not correlated with impact. Read the current list of predatory online journals. This also means that a name is not likely to hugely affect submissions. If it was, The Lancet would be a dead end for human health research (spoiler alert—it’s not).Recommendation 1.4 on changing the journals’ names: While the present confusion is mentioned, it is not stated that this confusion is a self-inflicted wound that we caused ourselves by monkeying with the names before. That confusion will go even higher with new names, especially among the non-North American audience of readers and authors that we are supposedly targeting for increased participation.I would support open peer review, but not the revealing of reviewers’ identities if they wished to remain anonymous. There have been some intense discussions of this on social media, and it is clear that members of underrepresented groups and junior professionals are often very uncomfortable with this—to the point of not participating if they have to be identified. To provide them cover to be honest in their evaluations and to increase their participation, I think the option of anonymity is critical to maintain.Finally, I suggest that we should publish monographs again but make them special articles in the journals. In sum, I ask why give up brand leadership and leadership in our taxon sector by name changes to try to eke out a few tenths of IF value? We are already a strong leader in our discipline, and everyone in our discipline knows this. A title change squanders that leadership for just a tiny potential gain.Chawla, D. S. 2018. What’s wrong with the journal impact factor in 5 graphs. Nature Index https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/whats-wrong-with-the-jif-in-five-graphs Larivière, V., and C.R. Sugimoto. 2018. The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08992 The following changes to the Checklist of Alaska Birds primarily reflect systematic changes imposed by the Sixtieth Supplement to the Check-list of North American Birds (2019; doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukz042):ADD Stejneger’s Scoter Melanitta stejnegeri. Following 60th Supplement, in the family Anatidae (Ducks, Geese, Swans), the White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca is split into three species. Formerly maintained in Alaska as a subspecies, the (Asiatic) taxon stejnegeri is now maintained as a full species (Stejneger’s Scoter), and the (North American) White-winged Scoter is separated from the (European) Velvet Scoter. The earliest-named species of these three, the Velvet Scoter retains the epithet  fusca; the next-available name for the (North American) White-winged Scoter is deglandi. Thus the two of these species on the Alaska list are now White-winged Scoter Melanitta deglandi and Stejneger’s Scoter Melanitta stejnegeri, in that order. For published discussion of the occurrence of Stejneger’s Scoter in Alaska, see Dunn et al. 2012 (Alaska records of the Asian White-winged Scoter. Western Birds 43:220-228) and Gibson and Withrow 2015 (Inventory of the species and subspecies of Alaska birds. Western Birds 46:111). For online access to those publications go to ‘Journal’ at westernfieldornithologists.org.ADD Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus. In the family Charadriidae (Lapwings and Plovers), Snowy Plover C. nivosus is added to the Alaska list founded on one bird observed 7 June 2019 at Egg Island, Copper River Delta, by Mary Anne Bishop, Kirsti Jurica, and Anne Schaefer (photos AKCLC). Following 60th Supplement, species in the genus Charadrius are reorganized; this species is listed last.ADD Pallas’s Gull Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus. In the family Laridae (Gulls and Terns), Pallas’s Gull is added to the Alaska list founded on an adult observed 2-4 May 2019 at Shemya Island, Aleutian Islands, by Richard A. Fischer, who found the bird dead on 14 May 2019 and salvaged the specimen (UAM, ad. ♀). Following Dickinson and Remsen (2013), the genus Ichthyaetus is listed immediately preceding the genus Larus.Following 60th Supplement, in the family Hydrobatidae (Northern Storm-Petrels), the two species in Alaska are transferred from the (feminine) genus Oceanodroma to the (masculine) genus Hydrobates, and their (adjectival) species epithets must now agree in gender with the latter. (In the Unsubstantiated List, note as well Swinhoe’s Storm-Petrel, also removed from Oceanodroma to Hydrobates.)In the family Sulidae (Boobies and Gannets), Red-footedBooby Sula sula, now with a thirdAlaska record, is maintained as Casual, not Accidental.Wryneck Jynx torquilla, now with athird Alaska record, is maintained as Casual, not Accidental.Following 60th Supplement, in the familyHirundinidae (Swallows), the sequence of genera is reorganized.Following 60th Supplement, in the familyAcrocephalidae (Reed Warblers), the Thick-billed Warbler is moved to the genus Arundinax. Until this species wasaccepted by AOU/AOS, in 2019, AKCLC followed Dickinson and Christidis 2014 (TheHoward and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, 4th ed., Vol. 2:Passeriformes. Aves Press, Eastbourne, England) in maintaining this species inthe genus Acrocephalus.Following 60th Supplement, in the family Locustellidae (Grassbirds), River Warbler L. fluviatilis immediately follows L. ochotensis. Until River Warbler was accepted by AOU/AOS, in 2019, AKCLC followed Dickinson and Christidis (2014) for linear placement in the genus. Changes in the 25th edition—2019 (downloadable at right)ADDITIONS TO THE CHECKLIST in 2018 (in taxonomic order)Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus: Light-morph ad, 15 Nov 2018–2+ Jan 2019, St. Paul Island, Pribilof Islands (B. Lestenkof, B. Pierce, B. Benter, S. Clark).  Photos AKCLC.Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio: Imm, 3–22 Oct 2017, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island (P. E. Lehman, P. Pyle, N. Moores, J. Hough, and G. H. Rosenberg).  Photos AKCLC.LeConte’s Sparrow Ammospiza leconteii: One bird, 13 Oct 2018, Sitka (C. Goff).  Photo AKCLC.Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea: Ad male, 6–8 Jun 2018, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island (P. E. Lehman and others).  Photos AKCLC.CHANGES TO THE UNSUBSTANTIATED LISTLittle Shearwater (Puffinus assimilis) was deleted because, in view of uncertain taxonomic relationships among some small black-and-white shearwaters in the Pacific, the descriptive details on file for the two Alaska reports are now regarded as inadequate to point to this species alone.Bay-breasted Warbler (Setophaga castanea) was substantiated in 2018 and moved to the main list.STATUS CHANGESSolitary Snipe, Red-footed Booby, and Black-throated Gray Warbler are maintained as Casual.OTHER ALASKA CHANGES FOLLOWING THE 59th Supplement (2018) to The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds (Seventh ed., 1998)In the family Caprimulgidae the Gray Nightjar subspecies known in Alaska is elevated to status as a full species, Caprimulgus jotaka.The family Hydrobatidae, renamed Northern Storm-Petrels, separates the families Diomedeidae and Procellariidae.In the family Accipitridae the genera Aquila, Circus, and Accipiter, in that sequence, precede the genus Milvus.In the family Picidae, the Downy and Hairy woodpeckers are restored to the genus Dryobates from Picoides and are listed following Dendrocopos; the American Three-toed and Black-backed woodpeckers, which remain in Picoides, are listed preceding Dendrocopos.In the family Tyrannidae, the subfamily Tyranninae (Myiarchus and Tyrannus) precede the subfamily Fluvicolinae (Contopus through Sayornis).In the family Corvidae, the English name of Perisoreus canadensis is restored to Canada Jay.In the family Muscicapidae, four species are removed from the polyphyletic genus Luscinia: the Siberian Blue Robin and Rufous-tailed Robin to the genus Larvivora, the Bluethroat to the genus Cyanecula, and the Siberian Rubythroat to the genus Calliope.  In that order, those three genera separate Muscicapa and Ficedula.DDG and JJW (for the AKCLC), 11 January 2019Alaska Checklist Committee: Daniel D. Gibson, Lucas H. DeCicco, Robert E. Gill Jr., Steven C. Heinl, Aaron J. Lang, Theodore G. Tobish Jr., and Jack J. Withrow.Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestTumblr Changes in the 24th edition—2018 (downloadable at right)ADDITIONS TO THE CHECKLIST in 2017 (in taxonomic order)Nazca Booby Sula granti: Ad, 30 Aug 2017, 13.5 mi/21 km off East Amatuli Island, Barren Islands, entrance to Cook Inlet, at 58° 55ʹ N 151° 35ʹ W (M. G. Levine). Photos AKCLC. The identification of another bird reported as this species one week earlier (Ad, 24 Aug 2017, 40 mi/64 km south of Tugidak Island, Kodiak archipelago, at 55° 58ʹ N 154° 34ʹ W (S. Cobb) was not agreed upon unanimously by the committee; a second vote will be conducted in 2018.Black Kite Milvus migrans: One bird, 2-3 Jan 2017, St. Paul Island, Pribilof Islands (B. Lestenkoff). Photos AKCLC.Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus: One bird, 3 Jul to at least 18 Nov 2017, Gustavus (B. B. Paige, J. D. Levison, R. B. Benter, N. Drumheller, and others). Photos AKCLC.Thick-billed Warbler Acrocephalus aedon: One bird, 8-13 Sep 2017, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island (R. Stoll, V. Stoll, G. H. Rosenberg, A. J. Lang, G. Scyphers, and others). Photos AKCLC.River Warbler Locustella fluviatilis: One bird, 7 Oct 2017, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island (S. Bryer, C. Irigoo Jr., E. Banstorp, P. E. Lehman, and others). Photos AKCLC.Pied Wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka: SY female, 4 Jul-4 Aug+2017, Cape Nome, Seward Peninsula (A. Harper, J. D. Levison, R. B. Benter, J. Bosler, T. G. Tobish Jr., and others). Photos AKCLC.Northern Parula Setophaga americana: Singing male, 28-29 Jun 2017, Ketchikan (S. C. Heinl and A. W. Piston). Photos AKCLC. Transferred from the unsubstantiated list.CHANGES TO THE UNSUBSTANTIATED LISTNorthern Parula was substantiated in 2017 and removed to the main list.STATUS CHANGESThe definition of Accidental has been emended to read: “One or two Alaska records, or none in last 30 years.” As a result, we now maintain Cook’s Petrel, American Black Duck, and Fieldfare as Accidental.Least Flycatcher is now maintained as Rare/annual. Dusky Warbler is now maintained as Casual.OTHER ALASKA CHANGES FOLLOWING AOU Check-list Supplement 58 (2017)In the family Anatidae the genus Chen has been submerged in Anser; the Checklist of Alaska Birds now begins with Emperor Goose Anser canagicus, Snow Goose A. caerulescens, and Ross’s Goose A. rossii, in that order.The dabbling ducks have been extensively revised and reordered. Baikal Teal is now in the monotypic genus Sibirionetta and directly follows Aix. The ‘blue-winged’ ducks – in the order Garganey, Blue-winged and Cinnamon teal, and Northern Shoveler – are removed to the genus Spatula; and Gadwall, Falcated Duck, and Eurasian and American wigeon are now in the genus Mareca and listed in that order. The genera Sibirionetta, Spatula, and Mareca separate Aix from Anas.In the family Scolopacidae the curlews have been reordered: Bristle-thighed, Whimbrel, Little, Long-billed, and Far Eastern. Bar-tailed Godwit is now listed first in Limosa.In the family Laridae the former widely-recognized Thayer’s Gull has been submerged in Iceland Gull, as L. glaucoides thayeri. (Since the AKCLC has maintained this taxon that way for years here in Alaska, the only change to the Alaska list is to delete the parenthetic “includes thayeri” after listing for Iceland Gull.)In the family Ardeidae the genus Mesophoyx has been submerged in Ardea, so Intermediate Egret is now Ardea intermedia.In the family Accipitridae the subspecies of the former “Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus” have been elevated to status as separate Old World and New World species, the Hen Harrier C. cyaneus and the Northern Harrier C. hudsonius, respectively. The identification of a partial specimen from Attu Island (a salvaged distal left wing tentatively identified long ago at U.S. National Museum by its length as C. c. cyaneus—see Gibson and Byrd 2007) has not yet been confirmed through its DNA, which process we expect to see accomplished in 2018. Only then will we know if the Attu bird provides the only Alaska (and North American) record of Hen Harrier C. cyaneus—or has been an incorrectly identified example of the North American taxon. More later.In the family Laniidae the former Northern Shrike has been split into two species. Lanius excubitor (Great Gray Shrike) is now regarded as the bird of the western Old World, while the related birds of the eastern Old World and all of the New World are now Lanius borealis (Northern Shrike).Genera in the family Fringillidae are re-ordered Coccothraustes, Carpodacus, Pinicola, Pyrrhula, Leucosticte, Haemorhous, Chloris, Acanthis, Loxia, and Spinus. House Finch is listed first in Haemorhous.The former family Emberizidae has been split and now comprises only Old World Buntings. All New World sparrows and allies are removed from to the newly erected family Passerellidae, which directly follows Emberizidae in linear position. The order of genera within Passerellidae remains the same, Pipilo through Junco.Genera in the family Icteridae have been rearranged in the order Xanthocephalus, Dolichonyx, Sturnella, Icterus, Agelaius, Molothrus, Euphagus, and Quiscalus.The family Parulidae has been moved to linear position directly following the family Icteridae.The family Cardinalidae directly follows Parulidae and now concludes the Checklist of Alaska Birds.It was another busy year. If I have omitted any substantive change here, the omission has been inadvertent.DDG (for the AKCLC), 6 January 2018Alaska Checklist Committee: Daniel D. Gibson, Lucas H. DeCicco, Robert E. Gill Jr., Steven C. Heinl, Aaron J. Lang, Theodore G. Tobish Jr., and Jack J. Withrow.Gibson, D. D., and G. V. Byrd. 2007. Birds of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Series in Onithology 1. Nuttall Ornithological Club and American Ornithologists Union.Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestTumblr A recent paper in Zootaxa by Rouhan and colleagues (here, though paywalled) advocates that collections make such important contributions to published science that they should be recognized as coauthors. The paper is entitled “The time has come for Natural History Collections to claim co-authorship of research articles.” When I began reading their article, I was opposed to the idea. I give credit to the authors, though, for by the time I was finished, I was at least open to the concept. Importantly, they are not advocating for individual museum staff to be coauthors, but rather that an institution or group name for the collection should be used. That was a key distinction for me: I would not want to see collections’ contributions get confused with those of their associated staff. From another perspective, however, when I write a paper that uses many different collections, I would not want to appear as a scientific minion among a small forest of institutions that I happened to use in pursuing my questions. (Imagine the institution shopping that human authors would use!)The problem Rouhan et al. (2017) are addressing is that museum collections make huge contributions to published science, but those contributions are often unrecognized and difficult to track. Here at the University of Alaska Museum Bird Collection we’ve attempted to solve this in a different way (here), in which we keep track of publications that used our collection in a Google Scholar profile (we published on this here). We were careful not to use the term “author,” however (e.g.,“as if the collection were an author”), and we do not advocate a change to that status for collections. We believe our method serves the purpose quite well without unduly abusing the already contentious issue of authorship.That said, I do think that museum staff should be authors more often on projects when they make substantial contributions, and that this would happen more often with careful consideration of widely accepted authorship criteria (e.g., here).But as I noted, my mind is open to the concept of collections as authors if a consensus were to develop that these other two solutions under the present framework were inadequate. It is very uncommon to see institutions or consortia listed as authors, although it is becoming more common in large-scale genomics research.Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestTumblr Changes in the 23rd edition—2017 (downloadable at right)Four species ADDED in 2016 to Checklist of Alaska Birds (in taxonomic order)Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope: Hatching-year male, 3-5 Sep 2016, Auke Bay, photos by Gus B. van Vliet and Patty Rose.  Casual, because of its long, enigmatic, unsubstantiated past in se Alaska.  Its history in Alaska began with Willett’s 1921 statement (in Bird notes from southeastern Alaska.  Condor 23:156-159): “According to [local resident F. H.] Gray, quite common at Wrangell in spring and fall during some years; other years apparently absent.”  In the absence of any pre-1921 published mention of this species in Alaska, however, Willett’s explicit intention (op. cit.:156) “to include only species regarding which some fact or facts have come to light that add to previously published matter regarding them” would seem to make his 1921 report enigmatic.  Four+ (silent) decades later, there were six (unsubstantiated) reports from the late 1960s through the 1980s (male, [no date] May 1967, Juneau, Richard J. Gordon; female, 6 May 1968, Juneau, RJG; at least one, summer 1968, Juneau, fide RJG; one, 27 Jul 1974, Juneau, Evelyn S. Dunn; male, 14 Aug 1975, Little Port Walter, Baranof Island, Alex C. Wertheimer; and female, 18 Jun 1988, Mitkof Island, Peter J. Walsh).  Insert in Family Trochilidae following Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus. Continue reading Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestTumblr A truly marvelous epistle, written on notepaper celebrating Love is in the air. A woodpecker flew into a window despite obstacles and visual deterrents, landed comfortably (though dead) on some pillows, and, well, read the details (Turns out that it was an adult female.)About the Love Notes for Dead Birds: We receive a lot of birds that people find dead and route to us through places like wildlife agencies, rehabilitation clinics, etc. What makes these specimens scientifically useful is to write the location and date down with the bird and freeze it until it can be gotten to us. People often write a little more than necessary, and we re pleased to share some of those.Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestTumblr Several years ago, Dan Gibson and I published a paper on Asian birds coming to North America through Alaska entitled “The Asia-to-America Influx of Avian Influenza Wild Bird Hosts Is Large.”  In this paper we reversed the conclusions of a popular model of the global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). We suggested that wild birds are a greater risk than domestic poultry for bringing HPAI into North America. Since then, our model proved the more accurate, presaging the arrival in North America in fall 2014 of a pure Asian strain of H5N2. Wild birds were implicated, and we inferred passage through Alaska. This strain of HPAI went on to cause the worst poultry disease outbreak in U.S. history, resulting in billions of dollars in economic losses. Continue reading Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestTumblr

TAGS:Alaska of University 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Hot Websites