The importance of vouchers

We object to the recently instituted policy of some editors that prohibits the publication of voucher informa tion in printed issues of the journal. Editors of scientific journals are under several pressures: to reduce the back log and the time from submission to publication and, at the same time, to keep publishing costs?and subscrip tion rates?as low as possible. In general, publishing journals is getting more expensive: printing and mailing costs are increasing and journals are publishing more pages, using larger formats and/or increasing the number of issues per year in response to increasing submissions of quality work. These factors have brought about policy changes in several journals with regard to publishing voucher information in printed issues. In 2003, American Journal of Botany {AJE) eliminated voucher information from their printed versions and relegated it to online access only. Recently, Systematic Botany changed its for mat from tables to paragraph form with smaller fonts. Three issues of Taxon from 2004 left out voucher infor mation following AJB's distressing example. Unless something is done to stem the tide, and even reverse the flow, it seems likely that other journals will adopt simi lar policies in the near future. We believe that eliminat ing voucher data from printed journals is ill advised and reflects a poor understanding of science. The Editor-in Chief of Taxon has just reversed Taxon's exclusion of hard-copy voucher information for future issues. But the failure to publish hard copy of voucher information is still the policy of AJB and it is under consideration by other journals. It is critical that the issue be clearly under stood and discussed before such decisions are made. The elimination of voucher lists is described as a cost-saving measure. The rationale for this policy is that voucher data are "supplemental", and their absence, unlike that of figures or tables, does not adversely affect authors' arguments, analyses, or conclusions. Further more, advocates argue, electronic access is available world-wide with few exceptions, and the websites host ed by sponsoring scientific societies are acceptable repositories of voucher information. We challenge each of these assertions. While we acknowledge that voucher tables often occupy considerable space and may be expensive to typeset and print, we think that such infor mation is integral to the publication and to the very process of scientific research. Separating voucher infor mation from the printed version of the publication effec tively eliminates vouchers from consideration. Electron ic publication, however laudable as a goal, is neither uni versally accessible nor guaranteed in the future. Natural history collections provide a critical service in the housing and maintenance of voucher specimens. A further consequence of this policy of down-grading the importance of vouchers is that natural history collections will find it even more difficult to illustrate the critical role that specimens play in scientific research. This ill conceived policy will therefore add another hurdle to garnering continued or increased support for collections, at a time when collections worldwide are struggling.