by Raymond Hoser » Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:35 pm
Dear all, to save finding links, an abstract from one relevant paper is here.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 26:3-64. 3
Published 25 May 2015.
ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)
ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)
PRINO (Peer reviewed in name only) journals: When
quality control in scientific publications fails.
Raymond T. Hoser
Snakebusters, PO Box 599, Doncaster, Victoria, 3108, Australia.
Phone: +61 3 9812 3322 Fax: 9812 3355 E-mail: snakeman (at) snakeman.com.au
Received 2 July 2014, Accepted 18 May 2015, Published 25 May 2015.
ABSTRACT
“Peer Reviewed” publications are regarded as both the minimum standard and “gold standard” for scientific
research publications. By common definition peer-reviewed articles are those that have been evaluated by
two or more researchers or subject specialists in the academic community prior to the journal accepting it for
publication.
While not explicitly stated in the definition, it is implied that this ensures a quality and standard of factual
information and accuracy, not necessarily present in those publications not subjected to peer review.
In the period 1998 to 2009, a group of renegade reptile enthusiasts known as the Wüster gang decided to
engineer a global boycott of established zoological names by this author (Hoser) and other eminent scientists
in order steal the results of this work to rename the same taxa.
Their campaign, initially commenced on the internet via chat forums and later through social media sites such
as Facebook and Twitter failed (Hoser 2012c, 2013b).
Lacking success and with so-called “Hoser names” moving into widespread usage, in 2012, the same group
decided to mount a campaign to try to get others to support their “cause”, via a series of publications in
ostensibly “peer reviewed” journals. These publications, including (Kaiser 2012a, 2012b) circulated via the
web was later published in an ostensibly “peer reviewed” publication Herpetological Review, in a paper widely
known as Kaiser et al. (2013).
That paper was thoroughly discredited by Hoser (2013b) and also rejected by Cogger (2013, 2014a), Dubois
(2014), Eipper (2013), Mutton (2014a, 2014b), Shea (2013a-d), Thorpe (2013, 2014a, 2014b), Wellington
(2013, 2014a), Wells (2013, 2014), and many others, so this history is not reviewed here.
More recently in the period 2013 and 2014, associates of this same band of thieves have published a series
of descriptions of species and genera that overwrite names published in accordance with the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (“The Code”, “Zoological Rules” or “Zoological Code”) (Ride et al. 1999).
This has been in various “peer reviewed” journals.
This paper details the obvious defects in the relevant papers, within the context of documenting obvious
ongoing failures of cases of alleged “peer review”.
Also shown is how the term “peer review” and the affected publications have been hijacked by dishonest
people working as pseudoscientists to put a veneer of respectability to their own less than honourable
schemes.
Relevant cases of reckless taxonomic vandalism, also defined herein, by so-called zoologists acting in
deliberate violation of the Zoological Code are detailed. These publications have created an unscientific mess
that other scientists are forced to spend time correcting.
The term PRINO, an abbreviation of “peer review in name only” is formally coined to identify those journals
where the peer review process is so debased or shambolic as to effectively be absent in terms of any real
benefit.
Keywords: PRINO; peer review; journal; Wüster; Schliep; O’Shea; Kaiser; Hansen; Baig; Bates; Thieves;
Twombley; Creationist; science; Shea; Cogger; Wells, Wellington; herpetology; zoology; taxonomy;
nomenclature; scolecophidians; Gerrhosauridae; Swilesaurus; Funkisaurus; cryptozoology; Adelynkimberlea;
Macrochelys; Broghammerus; Malayopython; Laudakia; Leiopython; Bothrochilus; hoserae; bennetti;
meridionalis; montanus; Candoiidae; Zootaxa; ICZN, DNA; Zoological Code ; rules; scientific fraud; theft.