[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Frank T. Krell Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Mon Apr 13 10:55:00 CDT 2015


Taxonomists vote already with their feet by choosing where to submit.
Many of them are happy with early online publication and don't care about changing page numbering, some are not. I am afraid there won't be a unified voice.
I have no problems with changing metadata although it is a nuisance - BUT with increasing single article publishing, I am pretty sure that the problem will largely go away.

Frank


Dr. Frank-T. Krell, Chair, ZooBank Committee
http://zoobank.org 
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Curator of Entomology
Department of Zoology 
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
2001 Colorado Boulevard 
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA 
Frank.Krell at dmns.org 
Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244 
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492 
http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab





-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Sue Gardner
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:20 AM
To: John Noyes; 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

John posed an important question: "Shouldn't the taxonomists be telling the publishers how to do this and not the other way around?"

As an observer off to the side, I have to chime in and say: -absolutely yes-. The publishers should cater to your needs. As taxonomists, you should not have to adapt to their choices. Be clear, objective, and preferably unified in your voice on this and, if one publisher doesn't serve your needs, move along to a publisher that does.

Sue Ann Gardner, MLS
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Discovery and Resource Management
302S Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-4100 USA
sgardner2 at unl.edu
402-472-8566

________________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 3:54 AM
To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Hi Stephen,

I am not being inflexible on this. I am trying to be objective (which really should be viewed as being more constructive rather than less). It is not a matter of recognising the availability of new names. It is a matter of the date upon which these names and nomenclatural acts become available - from the prepub date or from the publication date of the compiled version. It is also a matter of which pagination and volume number to use (on occasion there is only a DOI) when citing the article or its contents. Shouldn't the taxonomists be telling the publishers how to do this and not the other way around? I have no argument with publishers who publish with fixed metadata - it is more with those that publish with variable metadata. After all if more than one publisher (there are at least three that I know of) can publish with fixed metadata then they could all could do it very easily. Personally I do not really see there is any wiggle room in the Code on this if you try to be completely objective about it. It says what it says irrespective of whether there is any mention of specific types of prepubications or metadata. If there is any disagreement in the interpretation of what is stated in the Code then it needs to be changed so that there is only one way of interpreting it.

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: 09 April 2015 21:54
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?

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.


_______________________________________________
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.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list