[Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 1 17:58:13 CDT 2016


PS: I meant to add that, again in relation to "efirst-then-print ones", the original motivation for ZooBank, supported by the global taxonomic community, was to ensure the availability of names from the efirst version, taxonomists being seemingly very worried that unavailable efirst names were vulnerable to someone else getting in and naming the new taxa before the print version was published. However, in practice, this hasn't worked well in that missing archive information is a widespread problem affecting many efirst publications, so the names have been unprotected until the print version, perhaps unbeknown to the authors! However, few if any of these names have been usurped during the vulnerable period, as far as I can tell. While this may be seen as a good thing, it does mean than ZooBank is kind of redundant for its primary purpose. It is serving instead as a database to keep track of newly published literature (far from comprehensively, of course). My point is just that things are a lot messier than originally envisaged and any attempts to be precise about Code compliance are becoming harder to achieve.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 1/10/16, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, gread at actrix.gen.nz
 Received: Saturday, 1 October, 2016, 6:31 PM
 
 
 Stephen,
 
 Can
 you name those journals?  I'm interested if there are
 other major
 online-only high-profile
 ones   The usual efirst-then-print ones (Hello
 JMBA UK) I don't care about, although
 they're a pain in the butt to track
 when
 the articles are really published, and the names become
 available.
 
 As evident from
 the thread yes indeed there are people who don't know
 what
 constitutes Code-valid publication. 
 But Nature staff should know.
 
 Yes, the web site seems to have a pdf
 invisibility problem at the moment -
 I used
 ResearchGate instead.
 
 Geoff
 
 On Sat,
 October 1, 2016 6:11 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > This isn't a big deal! There are only
 less than a handful of articles with
 >
 new taxa. It was up to the authors to ensure Code
 compliance. The website
 > seems odd,
 though, and I can't seem to find a way to get a pdf of
 any of
 > the articles! Anyway, there are
 plenty of other journals publishing more
 > new taxa than this one, all without valid
 ZooBank preregistration!
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Sat, 1/10/16, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject:
 [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports
 >  To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 >  Received: Saturday, 1 October, 2016,
 5:57 PM
 >
 >  Has
 anyone here published taxonomy in
 > 
 "Scientific Reports", Nature's
 >  online-only open access journal?  Why
 aren't they
 >  registering new taxa
 in
 >  ZooBank for authors?
 >
 >  Twitter thread
 about the issue:
 >
 > 
 https://twitter.com/BioInFocus/status/734870944330731520
 >
 >  Geoff
 >  --
 >  Geoffrey B.
 Read, Ph.D.
 >  Wellington, NEW
 ZEALAND
 >  gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list