[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 7 20:37:48 CST 2015
People are missing the important point. It isn't directly about "versions" but about historical documents. The EV version is contained on a historical document (in the form of a PDF). Any new names became available in that historical document. If that document is trashed and replaced, then we don't have the original document any longer, and so we CANNOT VERIFY that the content is exactly the same. The publisher may be tempted to "rewrite history" so as to hide errors in the original document.
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.
Sent from my iPad
On 8 Jan 2015, at 11:06 am, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
> 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?
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:"
> I can accept this
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of Neal Evenhuis
Thursday, January 8, 2015 1:00 AM
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>
>> how can
we verify that they were indeed validly published. Answer:
>> 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.
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
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 28 years
of Taxacom in 2015.
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