If they don't intend it to be a journal than they seriously need to go through and delete or fix the authors page, and you also have to explain how they deliberately set up there checklist as a journal article. Like...clearly they intend that paper to be treated as a scientific paper.
At any rate, if they are just creating there own checklist for funsies, than it's no different from Taxonomy in Flux, which has a head start as far as useful information goes (I love TiF and use it regularly, even if I don't always agree with the decisions). As far as I know not many people use TiF as there checklist baseline. I'd have to imagine this checklist would get a similar reception.
Although this does make me realize I should really just go ahead and create a website for my own checklist project!
You are correct that they used a citable journal format for their checklist, so if that's what you mean by having it be treated as a scientific paper - then sure. If you want me personally to explain how and why they did so, obviously I can't - and it would be unfair of me to speculate. But it is perfectly legal for anyone to do so.
I've already pointed out the things they put forth that indicate they are not behaving as an actual journal, but we can also look at the things that are missing.
- The entire acknowledgement section of the checklist is as follows: "We thank the many people whose observations, field work, specimen collection, and research have laid the groundwork for such a comprehensive taxonomic list." No mention of peer review. Or any review.
- Mission statement: notably lacking anything about a journal or even the word "publishing." They are "dedicated to advancing knowledge and effective communication about birds" which can be done in a number of ways that do not include a peer-reviewed journal. They do at least "focus on a scientifically based understanding" so at least science is mentioned, but if a scientific journal was the intent, it certainly is curious that they would feel the need to point out a scientific focus. Of course, if the intent is to have a checklist that rejects "non-scientific" influences, well that makes perfect sense then.
- When we get down to the word "publish" in the section "About" the organization, it is specifically referring to publication of "lists of bird names." Everything else in that section is about checklists and bird names... and nothing about a journal.
- If you wanted to publish a peer-reviewed article with this organization (a rebuttal perhaps?), how would you do so? I'll give you a hint - don't bother looking on their website for instructions. You can send them an email to "document reasons if or when their list departs from others" which again can be done in a number of non-peer reviewed ways, though they do ask for citations to other publications for a justification. If they can afford to, they may elect to post "
something" for you. But importantly peer review is not mentioned on this or any other page. Instead the concern is that "If a proposal’s quality falls short of enabling thorough, scholarly evaluation, it may be returned without review, perhaps with revisions suggested. (Not allowing this type of response to a proposal risks its voting outcome being not about the issue itself but rather something different, e.g., gaps in the proposal’s scholarship.)" A strange statement... only if it were meant to describe a peer-review process but without actually saying so. However, this seems to me a succinct description of what an editor or editorial board might do.
- At least in the U.S., its a big deal to be a non-profit publisher (or a non-profit anything) for many reasons, but especially tax code. Check out all the disclosure on the AOS website - they even include their tax filings to the Internal Revenue Service! (
Governance - American Ornithological Society (AOS)) The "Disclaimer" section on the AOU website would be the place for those details, right? But instead, we see a justification/statement leading to their assertion that they "not be held responsible for any discomfort, inconvenience, offense, mental and/or emotional distress, or other possible negative consequences potentially caused" by bird names, and I wish I were kidding. What a strange one-and-only disclaimer for a journal, but a sensible one for an "upstart" checklist.
As I think you have correctly diagnosed, the science-adjacent presentation is "sketchy." And as I think you have also correctly diagnosed, it is otherwise no different than Taxonomy in Flux in basic principle. I too have no issue with TIF or your checklist or any other alternatives I'm aware of - including this new AOU one. But I do believe it is important to call them what they are, and not what they're not. Because after all, "Wisdom begins with putting the right name on a thing."
