[Syrphidae] Re: An example not to follow

Martin Hauser phycus at gmail.com
Mon Jul 24 22:37:41 BST 2017


Good point....
it is amazing to see that they managed to have gravid females of Eristalis,
laying eggs on Aphid colonies and then the larvae were consuming aphids!
And this is in the Journal of Economic Entomology! Wow. What a failure of
peer review.....
This work should be retracted!
It is actually very interesting/scary/amazing how many papers are getting
retracted: http://retractionwatch.com/
But this is how science works.
Martin

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Santos Rojo <santos.rojo at ua.es> wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Thanks Ximo to start this debate and give us info about this paper. [I
> include copy of all messages about this issue at the end of this, for
> people that like to follow all “history” until here…]
>
> I think that most of us remember how were the things during XX century…
> and for sure previously to Google search engine… 15 years ago maximum…
>
> Now most complicate it is not to obtain the information… the complicate
> thing it is to read, analyze and apply all the information published each
> month… each week?… never in the past had been so easy to stay in contact
> with experts around the world or to contact with people and collaborate in
> research studies for all the people that like to do this… or at least this
> is more possible that in the close past (that was very difficult and
> unfortunately in many cases impossible…). This web site is a very well
> example of this.
>
> Our “real” knowledge about syrphids is very heterogeneous… we have a lot
> of bio/ecological data of a few species… and almost nothing about the
> majority…. but this is normal in many other groups of flies (and insects…).
> And this is of course same comparing different geographic areas… and also
> with a lot of species that are complicate to identify… BUT Syrphidae is
> probably one of the best-studied groups of flies with a lot of research
> centers, research groups, researchers… and a myriad of lovers and amateurs
> interested in the hoverflies/flower flies.
>
> Why occur then things like this?
>
> a) I agree that syrphid community could help more  (but we really try to
> help to people that contact with us as has been indicated and this website
> is an example!) BUT… the important thing it is not that keys are not
> available… becuase the key information is available! what it is this info?…
> that there are not general keys for all parts of the world… and some areas
> there are not keys at all… even this occur in not remote areas, occur with
> speciose genus of when reviews of taxonomical studies do not exist… but
> returning to the specific case that had been presented here
>
> => It is well-know using a lot of (very easy) sources of information…
> (starting from Wikipedia...) that genera Palpada & Copestylum are New World
> genera with a few exceptions of introduced species… this info is very easy
> to obtain... You can use a Neartic key to identify genus, no problem it is
> a tool to study BUT you must check the results if you like to do science.
>
> => But using all the tools available in this century… it is not difficult
> to discover other things related with this case that "makes my hair stands
> on end”… well as many of you know English it is not my mother language ;-)
> :-) … but I think that you can understand with the follow info
>
> a) I do not know nothing about main author of paper, but for sure it is
> not young graduate student… according his profile in Research gate (also
> free available) is Associate professor in an Indian University with more
> that 100 research items…
>
> b) This is not the first paper about syrphids where he appear as author or
> co-author… I found 3 more. Apparently their profile is applied related with
> biological control and this could to explain but not to justify the follow
> mistakes…
>
> b.1) Effect of insecticides on biodiversity of aphidophagous syrphid flies
> in fruit ecosystems of Kashmir
> (2017, Journal of Entomology and Zoology journal)
> Free full paper available. In the abstract you can read that Eristalis
> tenax and Eoeristalis cerealis are the main species… apparently he also
> sampled the larvae in the field...
>
> http://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/?year=2017&vol=5&
> issue=4&part=B&ArticleId=2053
>
> b.2) Functional response of four syrphid predators associated with Mealy
> Cabbage Aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae L. on Cruciferous Vegetables.
> (2017, International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences)
> Free available in the below link. In this case 2 of the species included
> and rearing in lab conditions (eating aphids!!) are: Eristalis cerealis and
> Eristalis tenax...
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318452763_
> Functional_Response_of_Four_Syrphid_Predators_Associated_
> with_Mealy_Cabbage_Aphid_Brevicoryne_brassicae_L_on_Cruciferous_Vegetables
>
> b.3) Functional Response of Four Syrphid Predators Associated With Green
> Apple Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in Laboratory
> <https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/109/1/78/2614224/Functional-Response-of-Four-Syrphid-Predators?searchresult=1>
> (2016, Journal of Economic Entomology)
> Similarly to previous paper Eristalis cerealis and Eristalis tenax are
> also included to study the predatory potencial of these species…
>
> https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/109/1/78/
> 2614224/Functional-Response-of-Four-Syrphid-Predators?
> redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
> then…
>
> I think that this is a BIG and serious problem…
>
> a) Journals
>
> => International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
>
> http://www.ijcmas.com/abstractview.php?ID=2287&vol=6-5-2017&SNo=47
>
> => Journal of Entomology and Zoology journal
>
> http://www.entomoljournal.com
>
> Both include “reference/links” to impact factor lists… or even with logo
> of Thomson Reuters… but DO NOT APPEAR in the JCR lists…
> Both appear listed as “Predatory Journal” in the main webs about this
> phenomenon:
>
> https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/#I
> http://fake-indian-journals.blogspot.com.es/2015/03/complete-list-of-fake-
> predatory-or.html
>
>  … yes we are lining in a complex and dangerous world…
>
>
> BUT the main problem is with:
>
> => Journal of Economic Entomology…. belonging to Entomological Society of
> America!!… how is this possible that this occur in a peer-reviewed journal
>  with JCR impact factor?… as far I know there are not any addendum or
> erratum in the Journal until now… at least I do not found it.
>
>
> I’m sorry for the long mail… impossible to explain by Twitter ;-) but I
> like to share this from a humid and hot Sunday from SouthEast Spain…
>
> Best
>
> Santos Rojo
> ************************************************************
> *******************************************
> Director Dpto. Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales.
> Universidad de Alicante. Aptdo 99
> E-03080 Alicante (Spain)
> ************************************************************
> *******************************************
>
> ====
>
>
> El 18 jul 2017, a las 17:37, ximo mengual sanchis <xmengual at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Well, I still have the same impression after some answers than the one I
> had before: we cannot do anything.
>
> Surely only by having taxonomy and keys all available freely on the Web.
>> My guess is that it will never be eradicated entirely, but we can minimise
>> it by free access in one place.
>>
>
> Free-access is not the solution, but it will help. Websites like
> ResearchGate, http://syrphidae.myspecies.info/, our own websites, and
> some more (Sci-Hub, etc.) offer all our papers for free. We do have the
> possibility to ask for some references in this discussion list as well. So,
> in my opinion, we cannot excuse a bad scientific article on the fact that
> authors did not have the appropriate literature. Moreover, editors and
> reviewers must check also that the bibliographic references are appropriate.
>
> and also having a well-known system of offering help in ID to everyone
>> working on syrphids. If we had a single syrphid website for taxonomy, keys
>> and ID help, this would go a long way towards eradicating such errors. The
>> authors at least tried to identify their material, which is good to see.
>> Some don't get that far.
>>
>
> Why would we have a 'single' website? Freedom of choice is important in
> this internet era. Anyway, the platform is there already.
> We can help on determination but we must not. I'm not paid to suggests
> names based on images, although I do it very gladly.
> We cannot be pleased because authors have tried to put names on their
> material. Basically, I cannot thank that they cited two genera from Kashmir
> that occur thousands kilometers away; I cannot thank that nobody else could
> check the ID of those flies (probably the material is not kept in proper
> conditions any longer); I cannot thank that those records will be in the
> literature forever without a small chance to be studied by someone else; I
> cannot be thankful because they tried their best. I do think that sometimes
> is better to use sp1, sp2, etc. rather than names, especially with the
> uncertainty is high.
>
> none of the researchers ever thought about how to ID the material before
>> the study, nobody includes funding in their grants and most people expect
>> to find somebody to do this for free
>>
>
> That's one of the reasons why we do not get money for taxonomy: the
> society (researchers included) have used to grant our resources for free.
> "No worries, this or that guy will determine the specimens". And we are
> part of the problem by providing names for free as suggested before. I'm
> getting paid from tax-payers money and very glad to help anyone coming to
> me asking doubts, as well students who need help. Thus, an incorrect ID
> cannot be justified by the lack of willing from our side.
>
> By reaching out and making connections to the authors and provide future
>> authoritative support whereby these researchers – and others - can avoid
>> future errors. Perhaps the authors do not have access to the latest
>> taxonomic literature
>>
>
> Perhaps, but see my comment above. A simple email to this list or to any
> of us is sufficient to get the literature you need. What I cannot do is
> their job: put all possible efforts to do accurate IDs and do proper
> science.
> The other question is why I should provide 'authoritative' support if I'm
> not asked for it. I don't think the authors would be happy if I come with
> my 'authoritative' knowledge (without being asked) and tell them that their
> IDs are wrong. This behavior has created more problems than solutions in
> the history of humankind.
>
> most of the taxonomic work has been done, is unavailable because it’s
>> still owned by private corporate publishing firms that exact ridiculous
>> fees to access these works (most of which were actually publicly financed)
>>
>
> I agree, but I'm not asking here to fight 'Goliath', this is not the place
> or the moment to discuss this.
>
> Be happy there are researchers doing work with syrphids. Mentor them: I’d
>> bet that this was a young graduate student’s work that had to be submitted
>> to qualify for (future) funding and education.  Encourage them to submit
>> their work to other people with more taxonomic and systematic experience,
>> and perhaps to journals with better editors and reviewers.
>>
>
> I'm happy to see that everyday, more and more people enjoy syrphids as
> much as I do, but this is not an excuse for bad science. I have mentored
> some of those young, extremely active researchers/students, and trust me
> when I say it is not easy: email correspondence was not created to
> determine specimens.
> Again, this particular case is just an example. The fact that bad taxonomy
> is published by a young graduate student is not an excuse. Shall we also
> mentor her/his mentor? I think I'm not the right person to evaluate a
> mentorship, but I can dislike this kind of papers that create confusion
> instead of enlightenment.
>
> We can not blame ourselves to justify that others have not done their job.
> We can keep saying '*we do not do enough from our side*', but I hope this
> is not the single answer I get.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ximo
>
>
> —————
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *"Ethan Bright" <ethanbr at umich.edu>
> *Asunto: **[Syrphidae] Re: An example not to follow*
> *Fecha: *17 de julio de 2017, 18:30:27 CEST
> *Para: *"'Hoverfly discussion list'" <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>
> How to avoid this? By reaching out and making connections to the authors
> and provide future authoritative support whereby these researchers – and
> others - can avoid future errors. Perhaps the authors do not have access to
> the latest taxonomic literature; India is itself a huge country, and
> perhaps a lot of literature from the west and increasingly the orient,
> where most of the taxonomic work has been done, is unavailable because it’s
> still owned by private corporate publishing firms that exact ridiculous
> fees to access these works (most of which were actually publicly financed).
>
> Be happy there are researchers doing work with syrphids. Mentor them: I’d
> bet that this was a young graduate student’s work that had to be submitted
> to qualify for (future) funding and education.  Encourage them to submit
> their work to other people with more taxonomic and systematic experience,
> and perhaps to journals with better editors and reviewers. With support and
> encouragement, most people will improve their game and, in the end, be
> better scientists and contribute to our knowledge.
>
>
> —————
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *Francis Gilbert <Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Asunto: **[Syrphidae] Re: An example not to follow*
> *Fecha: *17 de julio de 2017, 11:17:58 CEST
> *Para: *Martin Hauser <phycus at gmail.com>, Hoverfly discussion list <
> syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>
> Quite right, Martin !I stand corrected. But don't you think that at least
> such a website might narrow the focus to a list of possible names? Francis
>
> *From:* Martin Hauser [mailto:phycus at gmail.com <phycus at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 09:59
> *To:* Gilbert Francis <plzfg at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: [Syrphidae] Re: An example not to follow
>
> sorry but with all the free Lit in the world, you can not ID Syrphids from
> Kashmir! It is first user error, when you use a Nearctic key for a
> Palaearctic/Oriental region. People need to understand that identification
> (and I am talking about correct identification) is often very difficult,
> and just a few experts can do this and maybe it should not necessarily be
> free all the time (because when it is free, nobody values it). I get
> thousands of specimens from pollinator/ecological and biodiversity studies
> for identification - none of the researchers ever thought about how to ID
> the material before the study, nobody includes funding in their grants and
> most people expect to find somebody to do this for free - no wonder such
> expertise has such a low value these days...
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Francis Gilbert <
> Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> and also having a well-known system of offering help in ID to everyone
> working on syrphids. If we had a single syrphid website for taxonomy, keys
> and ID help, this would go a long way towards eradicating such errors. The
> authors at least tried to identify their material, which is good to see.
> Some don't get that far. Francis
>
> —————
>
> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
> *De: *Francis Gilbert <Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Asunto: **[Syrphidae] Re: An example not to follow*
> *Fecha: *17 de julio de 2017, 10:28:58 CEST
> *Para: *ximo mengual sanchis <xmengual at gmail.com>, Hoverfly discussion
> list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>
> Surely only by having taxonomy and keys all available freely on the Web.
> My guess is that it will never be eradicated entirely, but we can minimise
> it by free access in one place.
>
> Francis
>
>
> *From:* syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [
> mailto:syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> <syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>] *On Behalf Of *ximo mengual
> sanchis
> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 09:19
> *To:* Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Subject:* [Syrphidae] An example not to follow
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> the attached article was published today in an Indian journal. Besides
> many Grammar typos, they cite two genera from Kashmir that only occur in
> the New World.
>
> How to avoid this? It takes a lot of time to clean this mess afterwards.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ximo
>
> ********************************************************
> Dr. Ximo Mengual
> Head of the Diptera Section
> Stiftung Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig
> Leibniz-Institut für Biodiversität der Tiere
> Adenauerallee 160
> D-53113  Bonn, Germany
> Phone: 0049 (0)228 9122 292
> ZFMK web <https://www.zfmk.de/en/zfmk/ximo-mengual>
> <http://entomology.si.edu/StaffPages/MengualJ.html>
>
> https://www.bolgermany.de/ | http://syrphidae.lifedesks.org/
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
>


-- 
Dr. Martin Hauser
Senior Insect Biosystematist
California Department of Food and Agriculture
Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch
3294 Meadowview Road
Sacramento, CA 95832-1448
(916) 262-1154
cell: 217-3902417
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ppd/staff/mhauser.html


38°29’18.66”N 121°32’40.61”W

"The things you own, they end up owning you"
"Fight Club" (1999)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20170724/f8fa0368/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Syrphidae mailing list