[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Apr 13 15:32:24 CDT 2015


I've generally been staying out of this discussion -- in part because this horse has already been repeatedly beaten to a pulp; and in part because I've just been too busy with other things.  However, I happened to re-read something just now that PERFECTLY captures my own perspective of how to solve all of this:

"...it seems likely, in the longer term, and with the development of new information systems, that the solution will not lie in patching up a definition of publication but, rather, in scrapping it and finding a means of replacing "publication" as a primary determinant of availability."

Brilliant!  EXACTLY right, in my opinion!

By the way, here's the source of the quote:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?booksection=introduction 
[Second paragraph under the heading "Development of underlying principles"]

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




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank T. Krell [mailto:Frank.Krell at dmns.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 5:55 AM
> To: Sue Gardner; 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?
> 
> 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