[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 9 15:54:14 CDT 2015


Hi John,

I have some sympathy with your views, but I don't see it as constructive to be inflexible on this. The reality is that e-publication in zoology was largely influenced by one person, who's publishing company does not prepublish without already fixed metadata. This is largely because that person has complete control over all stages of publication. Many other publishers are not like this. The electronic amendment really hasn't taken them into account properly. But given that there is wiggle room in the Code to allow prepubs without metadata (it is not explicit, but neither is it explicitly ruled out), I think we should run with it rather than fail to recognise a great many new names. New names can fail to be strictly speaking available for all sorts of subtle reasons, but there is really no harm in continuing to use those names for taxa that would otherwise be without any name.

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/4/15, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "gread at actrix.gen.nz" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 Received: Thursday, 9 April, 2015, 9:15 PM
 
 Hi Stephen,
 
 As you know, I disagree with
 you and a few others with regards to the so-called metadata.
 I believe that the page numbers and volume numbers are part
 of the article because, as you say, they act as a signpost
 to specific parts of the article. Where does
 "metadata" start and end? For instance, if for
 some reason, the figure numbers were changed but the actual
 content of the article were not changed then do figure
 numbers constitute metadata as they only point to specific
 parts of the article. The same could be said of other
 information. So far as I know there is no definition of
 metadata in the Code and as it stands prepublications are in
 conflict with the code if any part of the article is changed
 and that includes pages numbers, volume numbers etc. Until
 such a time that metadata is defined in the code and the
 code says that changes in metadata are allowed and do not
 make the prepublication unavailable then I, and others,
 shall continue to regards prepubs as unavailable. I hope
 there is a change in the Code that defines this one way or
 the other, but at the same time I hope this change is not
 retrospective as the fourth edition was because this causes
 all sorts of unseen, unwanted problems.
 
 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: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 
 Sent: 08 April 2015 21:47
 To: 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org';
 John Noyes
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online
 publications code-compliant?
 
 John,
 
 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?
 
 Cheers,
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 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
  
  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.
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list