[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Frank.Krell at dmns.org Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Wed Jan 7 23:37:14 CST 2015


Stephen,

I disagree with almost every bit you just said (which is pretty rare).

Just so much: A van Gogh is a unique artifact, like a type specimen. A historical document exists in numerous copies and can be exactly copied indefinite times (this is the very essence of publishing). We do not have type specimens of original descriptions, although this was proposed in the past. Your metaphor doesn't work.

If you get away from bibliographical metadata to be part of the content of historical documents, then you can free yourself from a lot of worries in the current world of publishing. It is just a nightmare for catalogers who use page numbers as finding aid.

Good Night

Frank

Dr. Frank-T. Krell
Curator of Entomology
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
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


________________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 10:08 PM
To: kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au; Frank T. Krell
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; pscranston at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Frank does not seem to understand that a historical document is different to both its content and its metadata. An exact copy (same content) of a van Gogh is not the same as the original painting! In the case of electronic publications, the historical document is a PDF. As for "serious publishers", "seriousness" is a matter of degree. I don't think that the Code can specify who are the "serious publishers" and who are not? We need to treat all the same. The irony is that, at present, most publishers are publishing electronically ahead of print, and trying to make new names date from the electronic version. There is very little if any point to this! When journals become e-only, THEN we need to worry about electronic publication of new names. At present, we can just wait a couple of months or so for the print edition. Yet there appears to be some sort of perhaps Hoser-induced paranoia that new names will get usurped during the short time from online
 publication to print. There are plenty of names out there sitting vulnerable to this possibility (lacking Zoobank preregistration, etc.), but I haven't seen it happen even once yet! Talk about making life more complicated than it needs to be!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/1/15, Frank.Krell at dmns.org <Frank.Krell at dmns.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 5:01 PM

 Stephen does not want to
 distinguish between the content of the historical document
 and the bibliographical metadata of the historical document.
 The content of the Version of Record is immutable. So the
 historical document remains always available, just with
 different bibliographical metadata. Serious publishers do
 not change the content of the Version of Record but issue
 Corrigenda. If they mess with the Version of Record, then
 they are not to be considered serious publishers.

 I am finalizing a manuscript
 analysing the different online-early publication models of
 all the major publishers. It is a mixed bag. Some publishers
 do not consider the online-early publication the version of
 record and allow changes. Others are strict and do not allow
 changes. One has to know who does what, details which are
 sometimes hidden on their webpages or not revealed at all.
 That's why I am writing this paper (which I will make
 openly available when accepted - don't listen,
 ICZN!).

 Frank

 Dr. Frank-T. Krell
 Curator of Entomology
 Commissioner, International Commission on
 Zoological Nomenclature
 Chair, ICZN ZooBank
 Committee
 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





 ________________________________________
 From: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 8:49 PM
 To: KenWalker
 Cc: Taxacom; Pete
 Cranston
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for
 opinion

 Well, it all
 depends on how confident we can be that content really
 doesn't change from Online First to Print edition
 versions. Bear in mind that it doesn't only apply to
 prestigious publishers, but also to dodgy publishers and
 self-publishers. I have experience of one, fairly
 prestigious and respected publisher, who I won't name
 (not based here in N.Z.) They have an e-only journal (among
 others). They published a paper in it containing a
 nomenclatural act (lectotype designation) without having
 registered it on ZooBank. I pointed this out to them. They
 then registered it and republished with a new publication
 date, claiming the previous version to be an
 "accidental pre-release". Is this a problem?
 Maybe, maybe not. It wasn't registered before it was
 published electronically, but it now looks like it was. As I
 already said, the Code is messy on this. Another well-known
 publisher misunderstood the Code and published
 electronically ahead of the stated

 publication dates in the works, claiming that the latter was
 "the official publication date", when the
 publications would be archived, and what happens before that
 on their website was irrelevant! This misunderstanding
 creates confusion and it becomes virtually impossible to
 determine actual valid publication dates...

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 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: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>,
 "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>,
 "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "Pete Cranston" <pscranston at gmail.com>
  Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 4:28
 PM

  >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.


 _______________________________________________
 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