Fwd: Digitial Publication, etc.
Tue Jun 26 15:32:07 CDT 2001
Bob's point here is well taken. The point is integrity. Obviously, we
taxonomists to some degree lack it as we sure as heck have the police rules
out to make sure someone does not cut in line or "cheet." I sure hope most
of us have this intregity - which the tobacco scientists we so lacking of.
Our Taxonomic Report (of The International Lepidoptera Survey) is a small
fish in the publishing world. But integrity is just as important to us as
to the biggest journals. Our Vol.2 issue 8 was dated " 31 December 2000*
". The asterisk referred to this footnote: *The actual publication date of
this issue in 12 January 2001. This is the date the publication was
received. It contained the description of nine new species of Lacinipolia
moths. The 2000 date was to fulfill our subscription obligation. The 2001
date OUR own conscience - not just science - which some may turn into
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert A. (Bob) Morris" <ram at CS.UMB.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Digitial Publication, etc.
> If the publisher wishes it, providing for authentication of electronic
> time stamps has the same difficulty---that is to say, minimal---as
> authenticating any other piece of electronic information. The same
> public key encryption that allows authentication of any other data
> also allows the guarantee of the origin of a time stamp. Thus the
> issue comes down to your trust in the source of the time stamp. That
> is not different from the trust you place in a paper journal editor to
> have the correct "Received on ..." date, or issue a meaningful
> publication date on the journal.
> It's difficult to imagine that questions of priority to the second---or
> microsecond---in face of different electronic time authorities---are
> very consequential in this context, but even those can be addressed
> with pretty simple technology if the need and will exists to do so.
> As a matter of fact, I suppose that a journal editor who received two
> papers on the same day via post would be unwilling and unable to
> assign priority to one of them over the other.
> Bob Morris
> Thomas Lammers writes:
> > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:19:07 -0500
> > From: Thomas Lammers <lammers at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>
> > To: TAXACOM at usobi.org
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Digitial Publication, etc.
> > At 09:41 AM 6/26/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:32:50 -0400
> > >
> > >and know to the nearest *second* when it was "published". I can do
> > >the same for e-mail messages I received from you over 10 years ago.
> > >One can put time stamps on web pages. That seems to satisfy your
> > >requirements as to knowing when something was "written."
> > And I can easily alter it to gain "priority" :
> > >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2000 07:32:50 -0400
> > Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
More information about the Taxacom