[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Apr 8 15:46:36 CDT 2015


The prepub and the "compiled" article are *the same version* (or should be). The metadata isn't part of the article, so if two articles differ only in metadata, they are the same version. Versions differ only if the content differs. The metadata is useful for signposting (e.g. the start page of a description in a long article), so it makes sense to use the compiled page numbers when these are assigned (and before then, or alternatively, one can use, e.g. [6] for the sixth page of the article). There may be a problem for e-only publications without pagination, but these are still rare. I do not understand you when you say [quote] 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 [unquote]. Do you mean "available" in the nomenclatural sense, or in the everyday sense?



On Wed, 8/4/15, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
 To: "'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "gread at actrix.gen.nz" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2015, 11:11 PM
 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 Noyes
 Scientific Associate
 of Life Sciences
 Natural History Museum
 Cromwell Road
 London SW7 5BD 
 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):
 -----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-"
 > "before the date
 reupped"), then it might be available before the 
 > print edition, but there are a lot of
 complexities ...
 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,
 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).
 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
 (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list