How to improve the quality of scientific publications in ethnobiology

The scientific output in ethnobiology is growing worldwide, particularly in Latin America. This growth has prompted an obvious question: is the quality of these publications growing at the same rate? Assessing the quality of scientific production is not an easy task, although the worldwide adoption of metrics, such as Impact Factor, has become very common (Albuquerque 2010). In the case of impact factor specifically, there is increasing criticism regarding its use to assess the quality of the output from a researcher or institution as a factor in career advancement or to grant research funds. Bruce Alberts (2013), in a recent editorial in Science, rekindled the discussion over the current misuse of the impact factor as a metric. Independent of any discussion of the proper tools to evaluate scientific production, an evaluation of the progress made by a given science is necessary to determine how to proceed. In 2009, we provided an overview of the problems that occur specifically in the field of ethnobotany (Albuquerque and Hanazaki 2009; see also Albuquerque et al. 2011), and we noted some of the misconceptions and suggest solutions for them. From a broader perspective, it is clear that the difficulties of producing interesting articles extend to the entire field of ethnobiology. Now, we aim to propose some suggestions for ethnobiology base in our ideas (see Albuquerque and Hanazaki 2009).