2006 Final Business Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana
Submitted by Dr. Paul Z. Goldstein, Secretary
Prelude:
As detailed in the minutes of the preliminary business meeting, several publication reports and other business items, most notably the re-naming of Section A, in conjunction with the Society’s reorganization, were handled ably prior to the final business meeting and hence were not addressed or revisited at the final business meeting. Other agenda items addressed and resolved at the preliminary business meeting were committee appointments and appointment requests, foundation awards, and of course the Governing Board report by Dr. John Heraty. Much of the final business meeting’s discussion nonetheless surrounded publication-related issues, none of which were overly redundant with respect to reports at the preliminary business meeting. In the wake of Governing Board and “Town Hall” meetings (convened on 11 and 12 December, respectively) attended by Section A representatives and officers, many of the issues we as Section A face surround the Society’s reorganization. Happily, our initial stabs at such seeming trivia as the renaming of our section appear to be well received.
The agenda follows:
- Call to Order
Following the Preliminary Business meeting, convened at 5:30 pm on Monday 11 by Chair Von Dohlen December 2006 [minutes submitted and subsequently approved unamimously], the final business meeting for Section A (hereafter to be referred to as “Systematics, Evolution, and Biodiversity” in accordance with the Society’s restructuring) was convened at 3:30 pm on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 by incoming Chair Dr. Michael Caterino and outgoing Chair Dr. Carol Von Dohlen.
- Old Business. Approval of minutes from the preliminary business meeting. Unanimously approved by the assembled members.
- New Business, items as follows:
Publications Reports
Most ESA journals and other publications appear to be doing generally well both with respect to parity and finance although, as detailed in Section A Representative Dr. Margaret Thayer’s report on the Thomas Say Publications Editorial Board meeting held on 12 December 2006, there appears to be a financial bottleneck with respect to these issues, something that concerns the members of Section A. That notwithstanding, the following issues were discussed and although no formal votes were taken, generally agreed upon:
ESA Journal Digital Back Issues
The Publications Council has voted to send a recommendation to the Governing Board strongly recommending that the Governing Board makes funds available for producing digital back files of pre-1999 issues of the four major ESA journals (Annals, Economic Entomology, Environmental Entomology, Medical Entomology) during the fiscal year of 2007. Issues from 1999+ are already available digitally.
The justifiability of this vote was based on the fact that the lack of availability of these files is not only inconvenient, but might also have other detrimental effects, including but not limited to a depression of impact factor and article half-life. These justifications are significant because publications not available on-line are often overlooked, difficult to find by researchers, and not cited as often as they should be.
It was subsequently agreed that back files should be made available individually in an open-access manner through the ESA web site and that complete digital runs of each journal should also be made available for sale on CD.
Proposal for a new Journal entitled “Public Entomology”
The assembled members held an extensive discussion of a proposal by Daniel Strickman for a new journal entitled “Public Entomology. A complete proposal was not yet available to the Publications Council for review, so the assembled members concluded that not enough information was yet available to make a recommendation. Concern was expressed about whether said journal would draw papers from other ESA journals (particularly Medical Entomology), or journals of other societies (e.g. that of the Mosquito Control Association). The title of this putative new journal was also seen as problematic: “Public Entomology” suggests that such a journal’s content be directed at the public in the broad sense, whereas the journal was conceived as a peer-to-peer journal for professional entomologists dealing with entomological issues effecting the public. A suggestion was made from the floor that an alternative title, “Public Health Entomology”, might better capture the intended nature of such a journal. The matter was tabled pending availability of more formal information about the proposal.
Peer Review of Digital Publications (including web sites)
A short discussion initiated by Dr. John Oswald surrounded a motion passed by the Governing Board to charge the Publications Council with investigating matters related to the peer review of digital publications and make recommendations to the Governing Board about the issue.
Substantial discussion by the Publications Council has surrounded the need for this perennial issue of digital publication peer review and a general discussion of associated matters ensued. There was broad acknowledgement of the potential value of extending peer review to digital publications. Uncertainty over exactly how the system would work in detail was expressed. Dr. Oswald will draft a more detailed proposal that will include possible workflow and implementation details. This proposal will be presented and discussed by Publications Council members.
A suggestion was made from the floor that, if implemented, this program be implemented first on a trial basis for systematics-related digital publications, perhaps as an addendum to the Annals. Then, if the system is well received, broader implementation should be considered.
Authors’ Contributions to Papers Published in ESA Journals
The Publications Council approved a motion to adopt a policy statement that encourages authors to include in the acknowledgements sections of their manuscripts submitted to ESA journals information about the relative contributions of each author to the overall publication. There was a concensus that such a statement be encouraged but not mandatory.
Voucher Specimen Matters
I, Secretary Goldstein relayed to the Publications Council the concern expressed at the Section A preliminary business meeting that specimen vouchering is applied with inconsistent standards and rigor by peer-reviewed journals.
Mr. Alan Kahan (ESA Publications Manager) indicated that his recollection of ESA publications policy on this matter was more in the nature of a recommendation, rather than a requirement.
The following policy statement was copied from the on-line ESA Style Guide (http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/publish/style/index.htm) on 13 December 2006, and there was general agreement to keep a “weather eye” on the details of its wording:
“Voucher specimens of arthropods serve as future reference for published names used in scientific publications. Although the deposition of voucher specimens is not required as a condition for publication, authors are encouraged to deposit specimens in an established, permanent collection and to note in the published article that the expected deposition has been made and its location. Authors should contact the curator of a voucher repository before deposition concerning the procedures required for curation to ensure that the collection will accept the voucher materials. The designation and proper labeling of voucher specimens is the author's responsibility. When available, at least three specimens should be deposited. Each specimen should have the following information provided at the time of deposition:
“Standard label data which are required for the specimens collection (i.e., locality, date of collection, collector, host, ecological data, whether the specimen is from a laboratory collection, etc.).
An identification label that includes the identifier and date of identification.
A label that designates the specimen as ‘voucher.’"
It was noted, again by Goldstein, that the symposium held at the Entomology Collections Network in 2003 concerning the vouchering of molecular tissues is inextricably tied to morphological vouchering, and although considerable advances have been made with respect to tissue preservation and databasing, a “one size fits all” model is not yet possible without extraordinary coordination of numerous domestic and international institutions.
Goldstein raised the ongoing issue of concurrent sessions, particularly with respect to student competitions, their judging, and attendance. It was widely agreed that there is no simple solution to this matter, which was tabled. Dr. Caterino made the helpful suggestion that one way of handling this is to group Section A talks on a taxonomic basis.
Final remarks
Prior to the meeting’s closure, incoming Chair Caterino reminded the assembled members of upcoming deadlines for Program and Section symposia (1 February and 6 March 2007, respectively), and reiterated the upcoming meeting schedules.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Z. Goldstein