[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

David Campbell pleuronaia at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 08:28:58 CDT 2015


Prepublication almost seems designed to cause bibliographic confusion the
way it has been implemented.  Perhaps in part the problem is the
intermediacy between print and electronic, where electronic publication is
more suited to a publish each article as it is ready approach rather than
the traditional fill a volume pattern.  It also causes confusion for other
contexts such as GenBank - when should sequences be released?

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:11 AM, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear Rich and others,
>
> I still have this problem about prepubs (EarlyView, etc.). I know that
> many of you think that "metadata" is not important, but when maintaining a
> taxonomic catalogue it is difficult to know whether one should enter the
> pagination of the prepublication or that of the compiled publication. The
> correct pagination is important, especially where many taxa are dealt with
> in the same publication. There is also the problem of volume number which
> is often omitted from the prepublication. If the version of record, in the
> case of prepublications, is the version where the name is first made
> available then this is the one that has the correct pagination. However
> when the compiled version is published the prepublication is no longer
> available (or am I wrong here) only the compiled version, with the
> different pagination and volume number, is available. I know it seems to be
> a minor thing but it becomes important (to me at least) when cataloguing or
> maintaining a database, whether it be on-line or otherwise. I am glad that
> Frank is trying to clear up the problem, but in my view, we are being
> pushed into this by the publishers and it is unnecessary. I do not think
> that prepublications are necessary in taxonomy. At the moment we have two
> differing views, one driven by the publishers (that prepublications are
> OK), and one that is held by the majority of taxonomists that I have
> discussed this with (that prepubs are not OK). If publishers could include
> the correct pagination and volume number with the (uncompiled)
> prepublication (i.e. an exact copy of the compiled version then I would
> have no problem in accepting the publication as available, but as it stands
> I find this difficult because it is apparently in conflict with the code as
> it stands.
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Life Sciences
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about
> chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Richard Pyle
> Sent: 07 April 2015 07:39
> To: 'Stephen Thorpe'
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Assistant Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017



More information about the Taxacom mailing list