[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 7 20:38:32 CST 2015


In an ideal world ...


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

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>, "Pete Cranston" <pscranston at gmail.com>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 3:10 PM
 
 >Publishers don't
 like making mistakes, and sometimes try to hide them...
 
 That why we need competent
 taxonomic subject editors or Chief Editors. It should not
 get to the publisher if it is not ICZN code compliant.
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
 > On 8 Jan 2015, at 11:34 am, Stephen Thorpe
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 >
 > The
 problem, Donat, is that this is not formalised in the Code.
 I agree that it makes sense, and for pragmatic reasons I
 accept it, but there is still the problem of verification,
 i.e. that the publisher didn't try to "pull a fast
 one" by adding in a forgotten ZooBank LSID after the
 Early View version was first published online. Publishers
 don't like making mistakes, and sometimes try to hide
 them...
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Thu, 8/1/15, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
 wrote:
 >
 > Subject:
 RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 > To:
 "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>,
 "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "KenWalker" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
 > Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 1:06
 PM
 >
 > 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