[Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 2 15:10:28 CDT 2016


Geoff,
What you say brings up an issue in need of clarification (Rich): If there are two or more records for the same journal (which haven't been merged), only one of which has a stated archive, what happens if an article is registered with the other record for the journal (i.e. the one without an archive)? If the duplicate journal records are subsequently merged, then presumably it then looks like the article was registered with a stated archive, but this poses something of a potential problem: anyone trying to determine Code compliance before merger of the duplicate journal records will see no stated archive on the article record and so will determine that it is not Code compliant. Anyone doing this after the merger will see what appears to be Code compliance. Is that right, Rich?
Cheers,
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, 7:12 PM
 
 Stephen,
 
 There are two registrations
 for the journal. It seems you were looking at
 the second (unnecessary) one. The first one has
 had a PMC archive since
 2013. But it was an
 author initiated registration.
 
 At least two of the articles published in 2014
 seem to comply with the
 Code in including a
 LSID in the pdf and have registrations.  So why
 compliance is intermittent since, and
 hit-and-miss I have no idea.  It
 seems
 however, that with this journal it is up to the authors to
 be savvy
 about the Code, do the registration
 work, and make sure a nomenclature
 statement
 is included.
 
 Rather less
 worrying overall on author ignorance / journal
 intransigence
 than initially appeared from
 the story on Twitter.
 
 Geoff
 
 
 On Sun, October 2, 2016 5:22 pm, Stephen Thorpe
 wrote:
 > 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
 >
 >
 >
 
 
 --
 Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
 8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list