Sir

The popularity of the Science Citation Index (SCI) as a measure of ‘good’ science is damaging basic taxonomic work, without which the study of biodiversity would not be possible.

Basic taxonomic work is not highly cited, except in ‘hot’ taxa like the genus Homo. The number of authors citing a paper during the short period of time (ten years) that the SCI uses for its statistics is relatively low. But taxonomy papers continue to be referred to and cited for more than a century after their publication. Almost every good taxonomic paper becomes a classic in the literature.

High-quality basic taxonomic work — the description of new taxa and revision of older ones — is expensive and time-consuming. Many of the most interesting finds are from ‘exotic’ locations, requiring travelling, sampling, preparing, sending back collections, writing descriptions, illustrating and so on. The resulting papers are rated low in the SCI, even when published in high-quality specialist journals, and are unlikely to impress managers or funding agencies.

So a paradox arises: concern for biodiversity goes together with a dismissal of the foundation of any biodiversity work, which is the proper description of taxa. If there is reluctance to fund this kind of work because of low citations, and with fewer journals available to publish their findings, the most basic research in biodiversity is doomed to disappear, as is already happening.