[Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 1 23:22:16 CDT 2016


PS: Even if the articles had cited the ZooBank LSIDs, it still wouldn't count until very recently, as there is no stated archive for the journal before May 30, 2016 (unless it was added for the specific article)!

BTW, another issue that sometimes comes up with these "high impact" journals is that they sometimes relegate the taxonomy to supplementary word files, which don't count as Code compliant!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2/10/16, 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: gread at actrix.gen.nz, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 2 October, 2016, 5:03 PM
 
 Hi Stephen,
 
 Time fixes the
 efirst-then-print problem.  Those journals don't have
 to
 register papers and if they do not
 acknowledge problems they create for
 others
 in the interim (taxa can be a year or more in limbo)
 there's
 nothing to be done, other than
 chip away at them when the occasion arises
 to complain.
 
 Scientific Reports has about 12 papers
 registered in ZooBank (by
 somebody). As
 ZooBank doesn't display a date or author for edit
 actions it
 is not possible for the public to
 know when an entry arrived and who did
 it. 
 One article has two entries - so something odd there.
 
 However, I checked the pdfs of
 three of those articles at random and they
 all lacked any mention of ZooBank or LSIDS. 
 The paper with the
 Code-unpublished new
 family isn't there in ZooBank.  Those authors
 published a corrigendum last month, but
 it's not about the ZooBank issue.
 
 Geoff
 
 On Sun,
 October 2, 2016 11:43 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > Hi Geoff,
 > Well,
 I'm not sure about "major high-profile ones",
 as it doesn't really
 > matter to me
 which journals are involved. I think though that there
 are
 > ample problems with many of the
 "usual efirst-then-print ones". Many
 > journals appear to (rather opaquely)
 publish in 3 steps: (1) efirst
 > without
 allocation to an issue; followed by (2) efirst publication
 of
 > final print version; followed by (3)
 actual physical printing of final
 > print
 version. It is (3) which is nomenclaturally the most
 important if
 > the ZooBank
 preregistration hasn't been done properly (often due to
 lack
 > of a stated archive in the ZooBank
 record, which hardly anyone bothers to
 >
 check!), but it is also the hardest date to determine,
 particularly since
 > there will be fewer
 subscriptions for print editions as most libraries
 > slowly go digital only. Potentially, it
 also creates another problem
 > whereby it
 may still be necessary to pay for hard copy subscriptions
 just
 > to determine true publication
 dates, even though everything else might be
 > already paid for open access and available
 digitally!
 > Cheers,
 >
 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
 >
 >
 >
 >
 
 
 --
 Geoffrey B.
 Read, Ph.D.
 8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list