[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Apr 7 16:21:49 CDT 2015


For better or worse, the Code generally isn't concerned with "why"; only
"what".

I think the existing ZooBank and the current rules for electronic
publication are both good steps in the right direction (inevitable
direction).  But as was (or, at least should have been) clear to everyone
was that the Amendment really amounted to a trial period to figure all these
subtleties out.  That's one of the main reasons it was done as an Amendment,
rather than as a 5th Edition.  To me, the really important task is to get
the 5th Edition right.  We are still in the midst of a transitional era in
science -- the era between paper-based mechanisms of information
dissemination and electronic-based mechanisms. This transition period is
necessarily going to be awkward in many ways, and the existing Code rules
for electronic publication were designed as a "least of evils" approach to
navigating the awkward transition.  Personally, I am actually amazed at how
FEW problems there have been (90+ page commentaries notwithstanding).  I had
been bracing myself for many more (and more substantive) issues & problems;
but for the most part, things are reasonably stable.  This instills hope
that, when we do finally craft a 5th Edition, it will be well designed to
accommodate both the existing landscape, and the future.  Of course, part of
the reason for delaying the 5th Edition is to allow this transition period
to more clearly reveal where things will be going forward.

But I digress.....

Aloha,
Rich


Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in
Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu,
HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz; 'Frank T. Krell'
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
> 
> >and the "when" part only really comes into play in cases where there
> >are names in competition for priority<
> 
> Yes, but we seem to have a reality in which authors and publishers are
> "protecting" their new names, for the few months between online and print
> publication, by preregistering Online First articles on ZooBank. Given
that the
> print issue typically follows in a few months, the only rational reason I
can see
> for making the Online version available is "protection of priority". If
you take
> what I wrote in my last post a step further, you will see that
e-publications can
> easily be backdated by registering them on ZooBank before they are
published
> (or even written!) and then citing the LSID plus a suitably backdated
publication
> date in the work!
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 8/4/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> 
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>  To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, gread at actrix.gen.nz, "'Frank T. Krell'"
> <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
>  Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2015, 9:54 AM
> 
>  Hi Stephen,
> 
>  As you note, mis-matches
>  between cited date (within work) and actual date  have always
> existed.  Electronic works require  the addition of the date of
publication to  be
> within the work itself, but nobody ever actually  believed  that such
dates could
> always be  trusted to be accurate.
> 
>  You've nicely outlined EXACTLY why I have  always been opposed to the
> "registered+published=available"
>  model.  The fundamental issue is that, for  the first time, we have Code
> requirements that  are de-coupled in time. As  such, date of  availability
must
> be regarded as the latter of two  separate  things (registration
requirements
> fulfilled, and publication requirements  fulfilled).  That's not complex
per-se,
> but it does establish a fundamental  requirement for checking two things
> (instead of  one). Fortunately, one of  those things is  straightforward
(date of
> registration). Note: one thing  that  is not currently on the ZooBank
website,
> but could be added, is the date on  which all requirements of registration
for
> electronic works were completed.
>  I plan to
>  add this when I have time.
> 
>  Importantly however, it's easier to
>  determine *that* a work is available,
>  than
>  it is to determine *when* it was available, and the  "when" part only
really
> comes into  play in cases where there are names in competition for
priority.
> 
>  Aloha,
>  Rich
> 
>  Richard L. Pyle, PhD
>  Database
>  Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in  Ichthyology |
Dive
> Safety Officer  Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum,
>  1525 Bernice St., Honolulu,
>  HI 96817
>  Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
>  > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:33 AM  > To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;  gread at actrix.gen.nz;  'Frank T. Krell'
>  > Subject: RE:
>  [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>  >
>  > >Not really all
>  that complex, actually<
>  >
>  > Actually, the "complexities" I
>  had in mind include this scenario: ZooBank  > registration happens after
e-
> publication,  the LSID is added to the work,  but the  > citation in the
work of the
> initial  publication date isn't changed. So,  the  cited  > date isn't the
valid date
> of  publication, but that is OK, since apparently  cited  > publication
dates  can
> be incorrect. So, presumably, we must take the date  of  > ZooBank
registration
> to  be the valid date of publication. But, the LSID  might not  > have
been added
> to the work until sometime after that date.
>  Retrospectively,
>  > there
>  does not seem to be any way to determine when the LSID was  added to  >
the
> work.
>  >
> 
>  > Stephen
>  >
>  >
>  --------------------------------------------
>  > On Tue, 7/4/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>  wrote:
>  >
>  >  Subject:
>  RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications  code-compliant?
>  >  To:
>  "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>  >  Cc:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,  gread at actrix.gen.nz,  "'Frank T. Krell'"
>  >
>  <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
>  >  Received: Tuesday, 7 April, 2015, 7:38  PM  >  >  > Even  that is  > 
somewhat
> unclear. If the PDF  is reupped with (previously  >
>  missing)
>  >  > evidence of ZooBank
>  >  preregistration (where "pre-"
>  means "before  the date  > reupped"), then  it  > might  be available
before
> the print edition, but there are a  > lot of  > complexities ...
>  >
>  >  The general consensus -- at
>  >  least among Commissioners I have
>  discussed this with -- is  that a work
>  >
>  becomes available the moment it fulfills all  requirements  of the Code.
This  >
> has  always been true for  printed works; and there is no reason  to think
it  >
> should be  any different for electronic works. Using your  hypothetical
example
> >  above, the moment the "reupped" PDF (with  included evidence for
ZooBank
> >
>  registration) is obtainable  (and assuming all other  criteria are
fulfilled), is
> the  > moment the work becomes available.  The  same would apply to  cases
> when  > the  ZooBank record is subsequently updated to  include required
> elements,  > such as the ISSN or  indication of  an online Archive.
>  >
>  >  Not
>  >  really all
>  that complex, actually.
>  >
>  >  Of course, all of these problems will  vanish  when if/when we adopt
the  >
> Registered=Available model of  registration (leaving  "Publication" to the
> realm  > of science; not part of the realm of  nomenclatural 
availability).
>  >
>  >  Aloha,
>  >  Rich
>  >
>  >
>  >  Richard L. Pyle, PhD
>  >  Database
>  >
>  Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in  Ichthyology |
Dive  >
> Safety Officer  Department  of Natural Sciences, Bishop  Museum, 1525
> Bernice  >  St.,  Honolulu, HI 96817  >  Ph:
>  (808)848-4115, Fax:
>  >  (808)847-8252
>  email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>  > http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 




More information about the Taxacom mailing list