[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Thu Jan 8 10:18:39 CST 2015


The main challenge is not the many different ways journals manage their online products but to find a suitable (i.e., simple) model for e-only Code compliance and retrievability of names -- and prepare the necessary legislative changes to the Code.

Following up on the mail from Ken earlier today on this issue, it *IS* difficult, and that is why we need to make the relevant changes to the Code so that it *BECOMES* 'not difficult'. 
We cannot escape that we are currently confronted with situations that are not fully (or not clearly) covered by the Code. This has to find a pragmatic solution, and I am sure we will find one.

The solution may well depend on how we want the situation to be, i.e., which (radical?) changes to the Code will be considered necessary for sufficient functionality.
Relevant legislative changes must be discussed, formulated and implemented, and that inevitably takes some time.
Rich proposes the "registered = available" model, and I am in favour of this. It has an attractive simplicity, and its ensures online availability of data, but there are still issues on how to define "registered", and we still have not even touched on mechanisms to vet or validate records. We will get there, but it will take some time.

Until then, I would urge editors and publishers to ensure that data critical for Code compliance is placed "in the work itself".

/Thomas Pape, Copenhagen

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: 8. januar 2015 17:01
Cc: taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

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.
_______________________________________________
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