Australasian Journal of Herpetology Australasian Journal of Herpetology 26:3-64. ISSN 1836-5698 3(Print) Published 25 May 2015. 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. Hoser 2015 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 26:3-64. Available online at www.herp.net Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved 4 Australasian Journal of Herpetology INTRODUCTION near unanimously against the renegades seeking to “Peer Reviewed” publications are regarded as both step outside the Zoological Code and rename the minimum standard and “gold standard” for properly named taxa. scientific research publications. By definition “Peer- It is also significant that the brief of the ICZN is also reviewed articles have been evaluated by several to enforce the rules of “The Code” and that is what researchers or subject specialists in the academic they have done to date. community prior to the journal accepting it for In every case, where attempts have been made to publication.” suppress one scientist’s works for the purposes of While not explicitly stated in the definition, it is renaming their taxa, the arguments have been the implied that this ensures a quality and standard of same. They have included the catch-all claim that factual information and accuracy, not necessarily the to be suppressed author is a “taxonomic vandal” present in un-peer-reviewed publications. or “unscientific”, easily shown to be a lie, because if This paper details the obvious defects in several that were the case, then the original scientist’s taxonomic papers, within the context of works could simply be placed into synonymy with documenting obvious failures of alleged “peer correct taxa as is done regularly in zoology and review”. within the Zoological Code. Also shown is how the term “peer review” has been If and when the alleged taxonomic vandal’s science hijacked by dishonest people working as is shown to be correct to the wider global audience pseudoscientists to put a veneer of respectability to to a degree that denial is pointless, the alleged their own less than honourable schemes. vandals are then accused of stealing the work from those who first identified the first author’s work as The term PRINO, an abbreviation of “peer review in taxonomic vandalism. name only” is formally coined to identify those journals where the peer review process is so It is a catch-22 situation engineered to ensure that debased and shambolic as to effectively be absent. the target scientist whose work is to be stolen, never gets credit for what they have done. As a preamble it is fitting that the cases that follow be put in a historical context. When the arguments are stripped bare, it invariably In the period 1998 to 2009, a group of renegade gets down to the fact that one group of people are reptile enthusiasts including people with convictions acting in an unprofessional manner and don’t want for animal cruelty and wildlife smuggling waged an to use the names or recognize the contribution to ongoing war against myself (Raymond Hoser). zoology by their adversaries or competitors. I am a herpetologist of global repute and author of A common but associated claim mounted is that the many hundreds of scientific papers published in original scientists have named “too many” taxa, both the peer reviewed and “popular” literature. The thereby depriving later workers of the right to name first peer reviewed paper was published by myself in species. 1980 in the Australian journal Herpetofauna (Hoser The claim is ridiculous in the extreme as it is in 1980) and my scientific publishing career spans the effect a call on scientists to stop working to allow period from that date to 2015. later “scientists” the ability to make discoveries. The group of renegades, known widely as “the Can you seriously imagine one scientist saying to Wüster gang”, although also marketing themselves another, “don’t publish your cure for cancer, as “truth haters” in order to gain some sort of because one day I might get around to doing it”? warped notoriety in the herpetological community, I should also add that no vertebrate taxonomists in decided to engineer a global boycott of established the 21st Century come anywhere near approaching zoological names in order to rename the same taxa the scale of mass-naming species and genera as themselves. compared to the major contributors from the 1800’s Other attempts to do this sort of thing have been and that there has never been a Zoological Code tried in zoological science many times over the past imposed limitation on the number of species or 200 years, but have always failed. The best known genera a person is allowed to name. recent examples were the attempts to suppress and In both the attempt to squash the names of Wells rename several hundred reptile species and genera, and Wellington in a petition to the ICZN in 1987 and formally named by Richard Wells and Ross in the Wüster gang’s campaign of 2012-2015, the Wellington in 1984 and 1985 (The president, same claim of the alleged “taxonomic vandal” Australian Society of herpetologists 1987, ICZN naming too many species has been raised as an 1991, 2001). argument in favour of suppression of the affected These attempts failed, as have all others, with the works. ICZN Commissioners ruling either unanimously, or Hoser 2015 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 26:3-64. Available online at www.herp.net Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved Australasian Journal of Herpetology 5 This equally bizarre suggestion must be reconciled This is the use of the internet to mount the with the more reasonable suggestion that perhaps campaign. the targeted scientists have simply been more Wüster’s ability to use the internet in every “productive” than their adversaries may have hoped. conceivable way to create a false veneer of the truth This is the usual accolade afforded to persons who and market his lies has been well documented have named a large number of taxa. already (Hoser 2012a, Hoser, 2012c and Hoser Such productivity in terms of ability to name valid 2013b). zoological entities within the boundaries of the In terms of volume of posts attacking myself, made Zoological Code (Ride et al. 1999) has clearly irked both under his real name, aliases he has assumed the Wüster gang, members of which led the and via people he has recruited to his cause is campaign against Wells and Wellington in the astronomical.