[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Michael Heads m.j.heads at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 00:49:33 CDT 2015


Geoff,

Your point that 'It's de facto universal electronic publication' is the key
thing. (On the other hand, many legal documents are still hardcopy  - with
ink signatures...).

Michael

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>



-- 
Dunedin, New Zealand.

My books:

Craw, R., J. Grehan, M. Heads. 1999. *Panbiogeography: Tracking the history
of life*. Oxford University Press, New York.
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC
<http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bm0_QQ3Z6GUC&dq=panbiogeography&source=gbs_navlinks_s>

Heads, M. 2012.* Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of
California Press, Berkeley. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968

Heads, M. 2014.* Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028



More information about the Taxacom mailing list