[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Tue Apr 7 22:13:03 CDT 2015


Stephen,

I don't think it's pointless.  It aligns the online-published date the
publisher puts in the version of record with the date of Code availability
so we all can know that date.  Keep it simple.

Publishers no longer seem to display actual print dates (= the much later
availability date in absence of ZooBank registration) because they are now
irrelevant to everyone except us taxonomists.  It's de facto universal
electronic publication.  So retrospectively determining this redundant
print date a few years later when a priority conflict is discovered is
probably very time-consuming, if not impossible. Let's not go there.

Geoff


On Wed, April 8, 2015 12:03 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> I was merely pointing out that there are ways to circumvent priority if
> anyone really wanted to, so validly publishing online before print (in
> order to protect priority) is a bit pointless. Valid online publication is
> really only necessary for e-only publication, which is still relatively
> rare. Anyway, taxonomists seem to be becoming increasingly disinterested
> in Code compliance.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 8/4/15, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>  To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>  Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> gread at actrix.gen.nz, "'Frank T. Krell'" <frank.krell at dmns.org>
>  Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2015, 12:31 PM
>
>
>  Stephen,
>
>  The
>  reality is that many online-before-print publishers are not
>  following
>  the simple requirements to
>  register their version-of-record in ZooBank
>  also.
>
>  I very
>  much wish that authors *were* indeed aware of the issue and
>  *were*
>  protecting their rightful priority by
>  making their names Code compliant as
>  they
>  should. That is a crunch issue at the moment. The idea of
>  a
>  conspiracy of editors/authors further
>  gaming the system by false
>  backdating
>  frankly seems fairly far-fetched.
>
>  It amazes me how oblivious experienced
>  taxonomists can be to
>  well-advertised code
>  changes.
>
>  Geoff
>
>  On Wed, April 8, 2015 9:05 am, Stephen Thorpe
>  wrote:
>  >>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
>
>
>
>


--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz




More information about the Taxacom mailing list