Inadequate treatment of taxonomic information prevents replicability of most zoological research

Abstract

We evaluated the quality of information about taxonomic identifications in 710 papers published in seven zoological journals in 2017. We found that only 10.7% of papers cited identification methods, 29.2% made available specimen-level material for later verification, and 6.9% indicated taxon concepts applied to studied animals. Only 4.0% provided details about all three practices, while almost two-thirds provided none. Invertebrate papers were more likely than vertebrate papers to provide identification methods and deposit vouchers, but taxon concepts were rarely provided, and none of the three practices were common in any category. In short, our data suggest that most zoological research is irreplicable. To address this problem, journals should require submitted manuscripts to meet the following guidelines: (1) methods used to identify studied taxa must be stated; (2) literature supporting these identifications must be cited; (3) taxon concept(s) applied to species-level taxa must be indicated; (4) specimen-level material should be available for later examination. We argue that research which falls short of these guidelines is not replicable. We provide recommendations for how authors can better document how studied animals are identified and permit others to verify their identifications, which is necessary for transparent, replicable, and ultimately scientific zoological research.