[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Karl Magnacca kmagnacca at wesleyan.edu
Mon Apr 13 13:31:46 CDT 2015


It seems to me that a big part of the underlying problem is the
increasingly long delay in traditional journals between not just
acceptance but final layout, resulting in an online publication that
has all the appearance of the "final" version except for the page
numbers.  The typeset online-early version is usually produced
within less than a month of final acceptance, so why does it then
take another nine months to a year to appear in "final" version?  If
papers came out in a timely fashion - as, it seems, they did not
that long ago - this might be an issue in a few rare cases but not
nearly as many.

Karl

On Mon, April 13, 2015 3:55 pm, Frank T. Krell wrote:
> 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