Validating taxonomic identifications in entomological research

Abstract

Abstract We surveyed the treatment of taxonomic information in 567 papers published in nine entomological journals in 2016. The proportion of papers that provide taxonomic data in sufficient detail to permit precise validation of taxonomic identifications is vanishingly small: most did not cite identification methods, most did not state whether identified material had been vouchered, and taxon concepts were almost universally absent in non‐taxonomic papers. Overall, the combination of all three factors was provided less than 2% of the time and almost two‐thirds of all papers provided none of the three. We suggest that journals should modify the templates used by editors and reviewers by overtly including the following questions: Are Order and Family named in the title, abstract or keywords? Are the methods used for identification of all studied taxa stated clearly? Is it clear who did the identifications, are they named and is their contact information and/or institutional affiliation provided? Is the literature whereupon these identifications are based cited appropriately? This would include some reference to as thorough a revisional taxon concept statement as possible, preferably from recent revisions if available. Are exemplars of all focal species (or all sampled individuals) vouchered in a named repository (ideally with contact person name and accession numbers or other means of ready detection)? Accurate and replicable taxonomic identification is the cornerstone of biology, without which entomological research risks becoming irreproducible and thus not scientific.