DFG SPP 1991

Information on Joint ‘Consortium paper’

 Dear all,

As we discussed during our meeting in Bonn, the TaxonOmics steering committee would like to encourage a concluding joint "consortium paper". For this, we invite project teams from the first and second project phase of our priority program (Schwerpunktprogramm, SPP 1991) to participate. The paper would focus mainly on summarizing methodological advancements and perspectives in taxonomy derived from our SPP.

The title could be something like:

Modern approaches in "TaxonOmics" across the Tree of Life

or

Harnessing modern high-throughput techniques for organismal taxonomy

As an example of what we have in mind, we here send a link to a review paper that was coordinated some time ago by herpetologist colleagues as follow-up of a speciation symposium:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/10/9/646

As you will see, in this model each project team provides a review of a "case study" of their own research within the SPP, and these separate case studies are then bracketed by a short introduction, some general synthesis, and a discussion. This means, one "case study" review per project, and projects that run over both phases should combine the contributions of both projects into one chapter. In our case, the overall paper might become longer than in the example due to the higher number of potential contributors, and we may need to bundle some contributions into chapters based on the methods used (e.g., museomics, RADseq, HybSeq, culturing+Sanger or metatranscriptomics for protists, and so on).

We feel that an open access journal such as PeerJ, Biodiversity Data Journal or Megataxa could be appropriate as outlet for this review article, and this will be discussed later among all contributors (we will not consider MDPI journals). Open access fees will be covered by the central TaxonOmics project.

In any case, the focus should clearly be on the methods, and specifically on modern methods and approaches for taxonomy. Even if a SPP project was more focused on genomics or phylogenetics, it will be good to mention, in a short introductory sentence to each section, specific taxonomic challenges in the targeted group of organisms that were tackled in the project by the new approach/method used. Then describe the results and how these are related to the modern / high throughput methods you used, as well as any new methodological development. Make sure you cite the main papers derived from your research in the SPP, as well as other papers (by yourself and by others) relevant for context. Avoid statements on and discussions of conceptual matters (e.g., species concepts) that may be controversial in the group, to avoid triggering endless discussions. Do not try to give a full overview of everything that you have done in the SPP-funded project but focus on those aspects that were most relevant (gave the most exciting insights) in terms of application and development of new methods for taxonomy. You may also include some original, novel results not published elsewhere, especially if they include comparisons or refinement of methods (in this case, detailed descriptions of the analyses may be included in supplementary documents). Overall, each project's "case study" text should be between 500-1000 words (plus list of authors, author addresses, and list of references), so that the entire manuscript remains manageable. Nice overview figures illustrating the main methods would be great! Please include figures illustrating each case studies, but be aware that it is uncertain if we can publish figures for every case study - the lead authors will decide how to combine figures into plates, or move some of the more specific figures illustrating case studies in Supplements.

On authorship: We are seeking for a small team of researchers in the SPP, ideally at the postdoc / early career scientist level, with the time and motivation to lead this study. This would mainly mean to assemble the bits and pieces and writing the general parts. Of course these "lead researchers" would then become first/last authors depending on their preferences, while all other contributors, including PI’s, would be listed in alphabetical order. Since we expect this paper to become quite highly cited, it should be quite attractive to feature among the lead authors. The steering committee (especially Miguel) is willing to help with this task, of course, but we would prefer to have a team of early career scientists taking the lead.

To make a start, we would like to receive your case study texts (again: 500-1000) by the 1st of August 2024. If you cannot meet this deadline but are interested in participating, send us an expression of interest along with a time estimate for completing your text. Please also let us know by the 1st of June if you are interested to be part of the team of lead authors. If some of your results are not yet published, you can cite them as unpublished and update the references (or remove the respective information) later. We would like to try completing the manuscript by the end of this year, and perhaps submit it in February or March 2025. Please send all materials to Tina Niemann (tina.niemann@uni-hamburg.de) who will collect and collate everything and then hand it over to the team of lead authors.

We hope that you will all be as enthusiastic about this idea of a joint methodological paper as we are, and are looking forward to get your feedback and contributions.

With kind regards,

The TaxonOmics Steering Committee (Dominik, Elvira, Gudrun and Miguel)