On demand printing, a nomenclatural problem for botany
pirog at HOME.COM
Wed Apr 26 08:47:52 CDT 2000
That was my question earlier. Is there a reason why peer review is not a requirement?
pirog at home.com
"Jose H. Leal" wrote:
> I share many of the concerns related to the non-permanence and planned
> obsolence of eletronic media, , etc., particularly in relation to the
> cumulative character of taxonomic works (in contrast to the more ephemeral
> nature of biomedical, technological, etc., stuff). Nonetheless, the fourth
> edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999,
> effective from 1 January 2000), somewhat too briefly, rules (Article 8.8.6)
> that "For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on
> paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must
> contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have
> been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries libraries
> which are identified by name in the work itself". On the other hand,
> peer-review, on paper publications or otherwise, was never a requirement
> from the standpoint of ICZN.
> At 08:41 AM 4/26/00 -0400, Robert Fogel wrote:
> >On demand printing is coming, but will not alter effective publication. All
> >one has to do is print say 25 copies and distribute them to major
> >herbaria/libraries. Some of our colleagues are doing this with Kinko's (a
> >nation-wide copying/printing company).
> >Robert Fogel
> José H. Leal, Ph.D.
> Editor, THE NAUTILUS
> A quarterly dedicated to Malacology - Since 1886
> 3075 Sanibel-Captiva Road
> Sanibel, FL 33957 USA
> (941) 395-2233; fax (941) 395-6706
> "We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto"
More information about the Taxacom