>I was thinking more in terms of quality control.  I know how Ed
>Petuch manages to publish large numbers of questionable names
>privately.    Perhaps it is best not to put too strict a screening
>in place, as the process of determining species is rather
>subjective, and the 'splitters' may ultimately be proven correct,
>but I wonder if there is some way that   the bar can be raised, to
>discourage inadequate work?  I was not trying to impugn any
>particular country--the problem is ubiquitous.

Unfortunately there is no way. If the journals refuse to publish his
works, he can then print it himself... without peer review. One
worker here, who has a wide reputation for publishing bull pucky, is
now doing this at home!

Then again, some journals will publish ANYTHING. The New Zealand
Journal of Geology & Geophysics recently published a paper on an
"Ordovician" pectinoid... which is in reality an early Miocene
Chlamys!
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<[log in to unmask]>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut