[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

David Campbell pleuronaia at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 10:00:48 CST 2015

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:01 PM, <Frank.Krell at dmns.org> wrote:

> ....
> I am finalizing a manuscript analysing the different online-early
> publication models of all the major publishers. It is a mixed bag.

I think this is the main challenge.  Publishers are putting various things
up online in various ways, without apparently having much concern for
people who want to suitably cite the papers.  Some "online early" versions
are the uncorrected proofs.  Online-only data can fall through the cracks
as papers are shifted around.  Besides the difficulty of determining
correct priority for publication and whether something is properly
published, there are issues such as data release (GenBank doesn't seem
entirely clear on whether sequences should be released when a paper is
available online or when it's officially out as the publication of record,
for example).  Format of online-only publications (not necessarily
nomenclatural) is sometimes different, e.g. no internal pagination.  That's
not so helpful for trying to cite a particular part of a paper as well as
being challenging when compiling a bibliography, especially if the journal
does not have any explanation of what its approach is.  Yes, I know that
one could replace bibliographic citations with various electronic links.
However, the journal that you are writing for may not have a suitable
bibliographic option to do that.  Also, human-recognizable information
about a reference is practical to proofread, unlike an arbitrary string of
symbols, and more useful for trying to figure out if you want to look up a
particular reference.  Ideally both the link and a human-friendly version
would be present.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list