[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jan 26 16:56:36 CST 2016
We are slowly making progress Laurent.
126.96.36.199. widely accessible electronic copies with fixed content and layout
A PDF uploaded to and accessible even temporarily on the internet is "widely accessible" (anybody on the internet can access it) and has fixed content and layout. The whole point of archiving was so that it remains accessible in the longer term. But because Zootaxa is too prolific to actually be able to archive everything quickly enough, the archiving requirement was watered down to a statement of intent to archive.
So, yes, technically, the e-first PDF is the published work (assuming that it complies fully with the Code). These important documents are being deleted without trace every day! That is part of the problem. It isn't a total disaster because they are typically being replaced by documents of equivalent content (and layout). But it is typically impossible to objectively verify actual dates of availability, because the original documents are lost and also the ZooBank records don't have publicly accessible edit histories! Note that none of this matters to Zootaxa, conveniently for them! Who is responsible for this mess? Well, you know who I blame.
"Preliminary version" has been left undefined. "Metadata" was "pulled out of a hat" to save the day from objections that unpaginated e-first dovuments were "preliminary versions".
Article 9. What does not constitute published work.
9.9. preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication (see Article 21.8.3);
21.8.3. Some works are accessible online in preliminary versions before the publication date of the final version. Such advance electronic access does not advance the date of publication of a work, as preliminary versions are not published (Article 9.9).
A "preliminary version" is now understood (and probably was the original intended meaning, but not made clear in the Code) to be one that differs in content and/or layout, but differences in mere "metadata" don't matter!
On Wed, 27/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 10:53 AM
Ok, that's at least
an interesting new reading.
You mean you do *not* regard the final pdf file
as a copy of the
published file at all; and
you consider that the early view file, having
been obtainable for just a few weeks on the
publisher website, before it
from the Internet, stands alone as "published"?
Do you really think that the
so-defined "published work" satisfies 188.8.131.52 ?
In my reading the early view
file cannot differ from the final one in
content and layout, and they *must* technically
BOTH TOGETHER form the
record" (ie, they cannot differ in any aspect of their
"content and layout"); if this is
not the case, the early view file
deemed published, because it would automatically be excluded
from what constitutes published work by
Art. 9.9. It's only the fact
that it is
not a preliminary version that allows the early view file to
stand as published.
01/26/2016 09:57 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Once again you are mistaken, but that
doesn't reflect badly on you,
reflects badly on the the almost bewilderingly confusing way
> the Code has been written.
> As long as the early
view file is considered to be the version of
> record (with preregistration on ZooBank
truly indicated within), all
matters is that the PDF file for it contains something which
> be reasonably interpreted as a date
of publication. If the subsequent
edition is different in any regard, this is irrelevant.
> So, in your example a
statement "Systematic Entomology (2015) ..." in
> the online edition contains a date of
> specified as
2015), so, all other things being equal, is Code
> compliant. It is irrelevant what happens
after that. What is
> technically made
available is the online first PDF (which probably
> never gets archived, but actual archiving
isn't actually a Code
is all a big mess but a few things are clear enough.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 29 years of
Taxacom in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom