[Taxacom] Proposed Amendment to the Code

dipteryx at freeler.nl dipteryx at freeler.nl
Thu Dec 24 11:47:10 CST 2009


Well, it is a matter of considering options and then making a choice.

Obviously, for those who are looking for information the most
attractive option would be to have Open Access copies of all papers,
preferably in one central archive, or otherwise each with their
respective publisher, but linked to from a central index.

However, if publishers are not willing to provide Open Access to 
their entire publications, then this is regrettable, but to be 
accepted as the way things are. Certainly it is understandable.

If publishers are willing, however, to provide Open Access to the 
nomenclaturally relevant parts of their publications, then this looks
to be a realistic option (especially if these can be deposited in a
central archive). Surely that is much better than having nothing at 
all?

I don't see any similarity between such a plan and the idea of having
a single taxonomic mega-journal, with Open Reviewing. That would have
been an all-or-nothing transition, while this strikes me as a 
rational, evolutionary step. It is not the best of all possible worlds,
but it looks like progress to me.

It would be a good idea to set things up so that it would be possible
to deposit the entire papers, for those publishers willing to do so, 
and not to necessarily restrict it to the nomenclatural-relevant part only.

Paul

* * *
Van: Dean Pentcheff [mailto:pentcheff at gmail.com]
Verzonden: do 24-12-2009 15:39

The proposal to split papers into two parts, the
taxonomic/nomenclaturally relevant part and "the rest" (i.e. anything
but the etymology and distinguishing features?), and to require
archiving the taxonomic/nomenclatural parts in a particular place
strikes me as little different than the earlier thread in this group
that suggested a single journal for all taxonomic/nomenclatural
publications.

The only difference is that with this proposal, papers in that journal
would be shorn of any content except the bare taxonomic minimum. Each
paper would have a (potentially difficult to locate) companion paper
floating around somewhere with all the rest of the scientific context.

-Dean
-- 
Dean Pentcheff
pentcheff at gmail.com

2009/12/24 dipteryx <dipteryx at freeler.nl>:
> Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Laurent Raty
> Verzonden: do 24-12-2009 9:50
>
>> Frank,
>
>>> "Split the taxonomic descriptions and actions from the paper and
>>> archive them separately in a freely accessible place."
>
>> But how do you achieve this under the present Code? Some
>> nomenclaturally relevant questions just cannot be answered
>> without seeing an entire work.
>
> ***
> I think I pointed this out before, but it could be done by introducing
> a new concept 'nomenclaturally-relevant-part-of the publication'
> (the botanical Code calls this the protologue of the name).
> It would be handy if it were to become a requirement that publications
> (at least electronic publications) were to be organized so as to set
> this nomenclatural part really apart from the rest of the publication.
> It could be done, but it would indeed be a break with the present Code.
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list