[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 7 20:34:39 CST 2015


>When the ICZN removed the page priority rule, it made pagination "metadata" not "content".<

No it didn't! Who dreamed that one up. Page priority has nothing whatsoever to do with content vs. metadata!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/1/15, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
 Cc: "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Pete Cranston" <pscranston at gmail.com>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 3:07 PM
 
 >the publication does
 not change when adding page numbers?
 
 Excellent point Donat and thank you.
 
 Many people get "hung
 up" on the non-paginated EV version which changes to a
 paginated final print version - if the journal has a printed
 run. When the ICZN removed the page priority rule, it made
 pagination "metadata" not "content".
 Therefore, the content does not change between the EV non-
 paginated and paginated final print. Of course, this
 "problem" only exists where a journal produces a
 printed version months after the EV version.
 
 This is why it is so important
 to accept EV publications as valid. Imagine a student or
 worker has a paper accepted for publication but has to wait,
 for our Austral Entomology journal, over 120 days on average
 for the printed version to appear before the author can cite
 the paper in grants and on a CV.  As a student, finishing a
 degree and looking for a post-doc or a job, the wait in
 terrible.  Our EV version is out in less than 30 days.
 
 Ken
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
 >
 On 8 Jan 2015, at 11:06 am, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
 wrote:
 >
 > The authors
 explain that from a formal publishing point of view (the
 publishers should be the one that define what a publication
 is and not the one who creates the content) the publication
 does not change when adding page numbers?
 >
 > "Recommendations
 on Journal Article Versions which state clearly that the
 addition of bibliographical details, namely pagination and
 volume/issue number, are not part of the content of a paper
 and do not change the version of an article (NISO/ALPSP
 Journal Article Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group,
 2008; Morgan 2008). If the content of the early electronic
 version is immutable, apart from bibliographical details,
 then this early electronic version is the Version of Record
 following NISO/ALPSP Recommendations:"
 >
 > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/syen.12119/
 >
 > I can accept this
 >
 > Donat
 >
 >
 >
 > -----Original
 Message-----
 > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Neal Evenhuis
 > Sent:
 Thursday, January 8, 2015 1:00 AM
 > To:
 Stephen Thorpe; Taxacom; KenWalker
 >
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 >
 > On Stardate 1/7/15
 1:43 PM, Star Commander "Stephen Thorpe"
 > <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 >
 >> how can
 we verify that they were indeed validly published. Answer:
 ONLY
 >> IF the EARLY VIEW version
 (PDF) has been archived and is accessible. As
 >> far as I can tell, if anything at all
 gets archived, it is the final
 >>
 paginated version. This could be a problem ...
 >
 > ***********
 > That was the problem that came up in the
 discussions among a number of us that led to this paper. The
 early view is indeed a valid publication at the time it
 comes online (any clicking on the DOI leads you to the
 archived electronic early view). But apparently, the early
 view version gets trashed once the paginated journal version
 of the article comes out.
 > If it is
 archived anywhere, I could not find it. Clicking on the same
 DOI [= archived version] goes directly to the paged version
 and not the early view publication.
 >
 > One would think that "archiving"
 means permanence, but this is not so when the original
 archived version changes.
 >
 > You should not be able to do a "bait
 and switch" in nomenclature.
 >
 > -Neal
 >
 >
 >
 >
 This message is only intended for the addressee named
 above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise
 protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of
 this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have
 received this message by mistake, please notify us
 immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. 
 Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not
 necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > 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.
 
 
 
 This e-mail
 is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential.
 You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute,
 act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are
 authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient
 of this e-mail, please notify mailto:postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au
 by email immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy
 any copy of this message. Views expressed in this email are
 those of the individual sender, except where specifically
 stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum
 Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
 integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that
 it is free from errors, virus or interference.
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list