[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Walker, Ken kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au
Wed Jan 7 21:28:03 CST 2015


>The publisher may be tempted to "rewrite history" so as to hide errors in the original document.

You seem to suggest that it will be the publisher who will find mistakes in an EV version of a paper and then that the publisher will know how to correct the error. I do not believe that publishers have that level of in-house expertise or would be silly enough to make non-author authorised changes to a published paper.

More than likely, only the author(s) will be the one to find a mistake(s). The author would then have to convince the journal editor to convince the publisher to make changes between the EV version and the printed archived version. Any step along that pathway can say 'NO!"

Changes = money;  I just do not think that journals will have an open pocket policy to fund the publisher to make author found errors after publication and having been through peer-review and subject editorial review.

We spoke to our archiving publisher about also archiving the EV version as well as the printed version and again it was all a matter of money. You want both archived then you pay extra and strike a new contract.

Publishers need to make profits not to be subservient to authors whims and wishes.

Ken

Sent from my iPad

> On 8 Jan 2015, at 1:37 pm, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> 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 It isn't directly about "versions" but about historical documents. The EV version is contained on a historical document (in the form of a PDF). Any new names became available in that historical document.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.
>
> 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.
>
>



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