Amateurs vs Professionals

yes, a very interesting calculation!

I can't say for France - but in England, professionals are a few people in museums plus functionaries from the nature conservancy. And everything.
The others work somewhere else-and are de jure amateurs - for example (from my friends) John Langmaid (co-editor of the multi-volume "Moths and Butterflies...") worked as a doctor, Jim Porter (author of the atlas of British macro-caterpillars) - a trade union clerk. We have almost no such fans - mostly butterflies are collected as wrappers.

2Kotbegemot Does
not quite agree with the fact that there are no amateurs - our mutual friend Max Kl..., deputy director of the municipal institution of additional education (formerly abbreviated MUDO), now slightly changed the name-added the words "educational" and" children " - MOUDOD. In his official duties - not a word about butterflies, which he professionally deals with... so who is he? an amateur? or a professional????

This post was edited by Elizar - 05.12.2008 15: 30

2Kotbegemot Does
not quite agree with the fact that there are no amateurs - our mutual friend Max Kl..., deputy director of the municipal institution of additional education (formerly abbreviated MUDO), now slightly changed the name-added the words "educational" and" children " - MOUDOD. In his official duties - not a word about butterflies, which he professionally deals with... so who is he? an amateur? or a professional????

I wrote - "practically"
I can give you more examples, but the vast majority of fans in Russia don't write anything, unlike.

All professionals were once amateurs. But reading your dialogues - "bison" of entomology, we are very grateful to you.

Our professionals, for the most part, grew out of the amateur world, didn't they?
Our fans have just started to grow. Therefore, the time will soon come when there will be no less amateurs and they will write articles no worse, but who will teach amateurs if not professionals, and who will correct the mistakes of amateurs.

but personally, I think that everyone should do their own thing. Articles should be written by people with sufficient competence, otherwise the quality of these articles will be, to put it mildly, not up to par. It is very bad when a person writes about something that he does not understand deeply.
But I must say that the occupation and education in my opinion have nothing to do with the concept of "amateur" and "professional". I myself have met many professors, who can be called amateurs with a stretch (although they consider themselves almost gods), as well as simple unsophisticated people with a very deep understanding of many issues. So in my opinion, these statistics confirm that some of those who consider themselves professionals are not such, but are just pompous snobs who despise everyone around them. And on the other hand, there are people who do not claim laurels, but simply do their job very well, which they themselves call a HOBBY, something from which they get a lot of pleasure. honor to them and praise. I wish there were more such fans around.

It seems to me that one small detail is forgotten. To describe the view, you need to publish the description. In other words, the journal must accept the article for publication. That is, the editorial board of the journal, usually literate people, after reading the opinion of reviewers (also usually knowledgeable people), decide that the article is suitable. In other words, the description can be published after being read by several competent people. But, for example, in my area (molek. biol.) there is one more small detail, so that the article is at least read, not to mention accepted for publication, it is necessary (in my opinion, but I may be wrong) so that at least one of the authors has an affiliation (i.e. formally registered) with one of the scientific (by profile) educational institutions. But maybe it's different in entomology.

I forgot to mention that there are two other things that are important:
1. Access to all modern literature on the subject of study (sometimes in different languages), it is necessary to know everything that is published at the moment about this group.
2. Access to museum specimens for this group of species, and most importantly to typical specimens, which are usually stored in large museums, and it is probably somewhat naive to expect that they (the value of the museum) will be sent on demand to the home address.

And now, anyone (pro or amateur, it doesn't matter) anyone who knows all the world literature well and has reviewed the type samples of similar species, not to mention the fact that having gone through a large sample of the so-called new species, will be able to publish a description in a journal that will be available to other specialists in the group around the world, can assume that they have described a new species.
Quite simply. And it doesn't matter if you are a pro or an amateur, the main thing is that it is reliable.

  
It is very bad when a person writes about something that he does not understand deeply.

And I have such a situation. I learned about the upcoming conference. At this moment, he was just dealing with his water beetles. Collected literature (30 articles). I looked at my fees, and what I could determine was up to date. Some species on the island turned out to be biondicators (dirty and salty reservoirs). And I wrote an article about beetles, which I didn't know much about until about two months ago. It turned out to be the only report on Moldova (I will not say), and whether this is good or bad is

When preparing the article and after viewing the museum collection it turned out that I also have 11 or 16 new species

When preparing the article and after viewing the museum collection it turned out that I also have 11 or 16 new species

But with this friend http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleoptera/rus/ppetrov.htm
you didn't talk to me by any chance?" Just in case, of course.

They send it to me.

Of course, recognition in your field weighs a lot.
But I still have a question, for the publication of an article in entomological journals, a scientific address (educational institution) is not required?

This post was edited by amara - 07.12.2008 23: 26

Of course, recognition in your field weighs a lot.
But I still have a question, for the publication of an article in entomological journals, a scientific address (educational institution) is not required?

No. many people write home, or specify an ent.the company they belong to.

So you, KDG, don't seem to be an amateur? What's so surprising about this, then, that they send you types? In addition, you seem to have already earned yourself some reputation and a name.

So you, KDG, don't seem to be an amateur? What's so surprising about this, then, that they send you types? Besides, you seem to have already earned yourself some reputation and a name.

According to the classification adopted here, he is an amateur. Because I do not work in a scientific institution and taxonomy with morphology is not my main activity.

But with this friend http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleoptera/rus/ppetrov.htm
you didn't talk to me by any chance?" Just in case, of course.

I didn't communicate with this friend.

I didn't communicate with this friend.

Then I can advise you. This is a specialist in water beetles
http://entomology.ru/main_menu/persons/pages/petrov.htm
, answers questions with pleasure (by email).

How knowledge is obtained:
1. literature
2. word of mouth
3. personal experience

The training system is very far from perfect, and it slows down progress in certain areas rather than speeds it up.. (speaking of amateurs of course)
Any person receives information from others in the form of books and conversations, and if a person is interested in something, then he gets this information from professionals, and then what difference does it make if they gave him a grind for it-a crust, a chocolate medal or on the nose..
Well, if an amateur decided to write an article like this, then in any case some pros know it, and they can write a review or just put in a good word, and the article written by them can be evaluated by any professional.

The most interesting thing is that only amateurs (i.e., lovers of their occupation) become professionals, and it doesn't matter what honors they have.

A professional differs from an amateur in only one way: he is officially paid money for his research work, or at least he is listed in the staff of the relevant institution. The line is not clear: for example, the head of a children's entomology circle is formally an amateur, although the level of the same Ustyuzhanin is professional.

Juglans says it right.
A book can also be published by a person without a biological education.

I will also add that there must be a literary review in the book/article.

Those who are interested in Far Eastern butterflies probably know the genus Maslowskia M. M. Omelko & M. A. Omelko. M. A. Omelko is a classic amateur, naturalist, ornithologist and entomologist who does not have a higher biological education.

I answer the first post, because then the discussion went a little in different directions. Amateurs (i.e. those who do not receive a salary for this activity) As a rule, they work in areas where you can get along with minimal equipment, do not require significant financial investments, and do not have to work regularly (arbitrary breaks in research are allowed). This rule works even if the amateur is a wealthy person. You won't find any fans of nuclear physicists or nanotechnologists. But entomologists and astronomers, where the minimum working minimum is an inexpensive binocular or a simple telescope, and objects are either under your feet or above your head everywhere, are full, and people of very different incomes. There is an obvious application in entomology, where a minimum of equipment is enough and you don't seem to need complex special knowledge (to get started) - faunistics and the simplest ecology. Faunistics can be transformed into a taxonomy, mainly in the description of new taxa, if you are still actively working. For some reason, it is generally accepted here that a taxonomy is something complex, respected, and prestigious. That's not so. Descriptive taxonomy is at the very bottom of the hierarchy of modern science (I emphasize modern science). The impact of journals that publish purely taxonomic works is a very good indicator of this. In Russia, it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to do any other work in entomology than taxonomically descriptive, without equipment, incentives, and much more (a separate topic). Therefore, taxonomy is incredibly cool and honorable. And for faunalists, who are generally absent from this scientific hierarchy, this level is generally seen as exorbitant, and professional fishermen are listed as some kind of gods.

An amateur taxonomist in Russia is a rare phenomenon, although not impossible. Theoretically, nothing prevents a person from visiting and studying large collections, receiving material for study (if it has already proven itself properly), working in libraries, and publishing their own articles. But such activities require commitment and constant active work, and for most amateurs this is unacceptable - they want to work either according to their mood, for pleasure, or in their free time from other numerous worries.

I will return to the topic raised at the beginning of the topic: why do amateurs describe so much in the West? Because professional researchers are engaged in other prestigious fields of science, and no one wants an uninteresting descriptive routine. At the same time, there are a large number of well-trained amateurs, including well-off ones who have access to literature and collections (the post office there works quickly and reliably). There are amateur societies. These societies have their own publications, where they publish faunistics, which is usually not accepted by normal magazines. These societies and the culture of amateur work have long-standing traditions and, on the whole, is incomparably higher than in Russia, where there is virtually no network of research centers (with huge distances), and the amateur nature of b. ch. manifests itself as a kind of mixture of selflessness and masochism. Accordingly, for most domestic amateurs, even high-quality faunistics, not to mention taxonomy, is a big problem. So the time when amateurs in Russia will be able to make a significant contribution to the descriptions of taxa, you need to wait a very, very long time. My opinion is that with the current political, economic, and educational trends, such a time will never come.

This post was edited by Salix - 12/13/2008 05: 55

A professional differs from an amateur in only one way: he is officially paid money for his research work, or at least he is listed in the staff of the relevant institution. The line is not clear: for example, the head of a children's entomology circle is formally an amateur, although the level of the same Ustyuzhanin is professional.

Not always. I know quite good specialists who go about their business without much love (i.e., from call to call). There are also" cynical pros " in taxonomy.

no, this is not the case (or rather, it is not always the case). I saw an article in the Journal of General Biology where the author listed a monastery as the address. Another thing is that our central magazines are very biased towards amateurs. But you can publish a book with your own money (without reviewers!) and describe new species in it. The main thing is that the book gets into the main libraries of the world.

Dobalyu. In the US, for example, not so long ago there was a scandal. We published a report that was fully generated on a computer a special program making semi-scientific texts (mostly a collection of unrelated scientific terms). So the report was reviewed and published. As far as I know, similar experiments were successful in our country. So in our time, you can publish anything, even with a review.

The impact factor of journals in graph theory or higher algebra is one of the lowest - and this is not due to the simplicity of these disciplines. The world knows theoretical physicists who were actually amateurs.

One of the lowest - in what category??? It is difficult to compare different areas of natural science. As a professional mathematician , I will say that algebra occupies a worthy place in modern mathematics. I will also add that at the amateur level in mathematics (in contrast, apparently, to entomology), it is now almost impossible to get results that deserve attention.

It seems to me: that there are no disputes, anyone (professional or amateur with experience)

1. read what you need (not a little)
2 those who have reviewed the standard samples and have gone through enough samples for the new type
3 who have tried publication in a publicly accessible (that is, for all colleagues) journal
can consider that they have "described a new type".

Everyone (?) understands that this requires a lot of desire and time to devote to the cause.
As in any other field, less will lead to a hack.

Now let's get down to business.

Taxonomists, by the way, have another problem. In many respects, relations are regulated not by competitive and competitive methods, but rather through jurisprudence. That is, if someone has written even complete taxonomic nonsense, you are obliged, if you are engaged in the relevant group, to quote this nonsense. Even if it's complete nonsense and written in any obscure magazine. In other words, a poor-quality specialist will get their link in any case. This means that there is no incentive to publish in a good journal, since formally any taxonomic publication has the force of law.

Another feature of taxonomy (in my opinion, a minus) is the ability to print a huge number of articles, compared to other sciences. Roughly speaking, you can describe ten types in one article, or you can describe one in ten different articles. Here you have a solid list of publications ready. In a sense, this is a compensation to taxonomists for low impacts, quantity in exchange for quality. Some advanced chemical physicist can publish only 1-2 articles a year + with a huge number of co-authors. Therefore, it is vitally interested to publish it in the most rating magazine possible. Returning to Russian taxonomists, the recent introduction of the PRND in the academy additionally encourages you to split up and write a huge number of small works to the detriment of large ones: a half-page taxonomic note in Zoosystematica Rossica will earn you 9 points, and a 20-page revision in Spixiana or Russ. Ent. J. only 6... While a note in Zoosyst. Ross. it will take you one day, and another job will take you six months...

This post was edited by Salix - 12/16/2008 00: 15