[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 8 00:05:15 CST 2015


The analogy wasn't meant to be perfect, but it is better than you claim! Remember the Code rule about initial print runs vs. printing to order? Effectively, an initial print run is a "unique artefact". For nomenclatural purposes, we ignore second editions, etc. The electronic equivalent of an initial print run is a PDF on the publisher's website. For pragmatic purposes, we often do rely on photocopies of originals, but only because we have very high confidence that photocopying does not change content. Can you really have such high confidence that publishers won't change content, even just a little bit??? Anyway, "freeing myself" from the marriage of content and metadata doesn't solve the main problem here, which is verifiability of the valid publication date. For that, you need to have very high confidence that no content has changed since the Early View version was published. Some publishers (and other groups) that I know (though, somewhat ironically,
 not Magnolia Press) actually do have a future vision in mind whereby electronic content is dynamic. Publishers in that frame of mind may be tempted to do things ...

Stephen

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

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz, kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 6:37 PM
 
 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 A historical document exists in numerous copies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 the content of historical documents, then you can free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