Getting science priorities straight: how to increase the reliability of specimen identification?

'We advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript'. This is a standard feedback journals give to non-native English speakers. Journals are justifiably concerned with grammar but do not show the same rigour about another step crucial to biological research: specimen identification. Surveying the author guidelines of 100 journals, we found that only 6% of them request explicitly citation of the literature used in specimen identification. Authors hamper readers from contesting specimen identification whenever vouchers, identification methods, and taxon concepts are not provided. However, unclear taxonomic procedures violate the basic scientific principle of reproducibility. The scientific community must continuously look for practical alternatives to improve taxonomic identification and taxonomic verification. We argue that voucher pictures are an accessible, cheap and time-effective alternative to mitigate (not abolish) bad taxonomy by exposing preventable misidentifications. Voucher pictures allow scientists to judge specimen identification actively, based on available data. The popularization of high-quality image devices, photo-identification technologies and computer vision algorithms yield accurate scientific photo-documentation, improving taxonomic procedures. Taxonomy is timeless, transversal and essential to most scientific disciplines in biological sciences. It is time to demand rigour in taxonomic identifications.

Automated summary

Journals often advise non-native English speaking authors to have their manuscripts proofread by a native English speaker, but they do not show the same concern for specimen identification in biological research. The lack of transparency in taxonomic procedures violates the basic scientific principle of reproducibility, and there is a need for continuous search for practical alternatives to improve and verify taxonomic identifications.