[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 129, Issue 4

Hinrich Kaiser chalcopis at yahoo.com
Sun Jan 8 13:31:13 CST 2017

Hi Everyone,
I appreciate Scott's comment, but this is exactly what I think could be done better. The Commission should not try to work along parameters developed by the publishing industry, but it should develop and adopt an ICZN standard. That standard would then be our benchmark as taxonomists, according to which we would choose the vehicles for publishing taxonomic decisions. Period.
Then, as taxonomists adhere to a greater and lesser degree to that standard, it would be possible to perhaps expand the rules and accept additional options - but not BEFORE the rules have been made and implemented. As it is, the ICZN responds to a need (as Scott stated, something was being forced on the Commission), and then something else happens in the industry, and the Commission once again needs to respond. When will it stop? 
That is not a scientific approach - in science we figure out how things work and act within those parameters. The Commission should develop the set of best practices and enforce it. It should not be in a position to play catch-up with an ever-changing industry. Indeed, nobody CAN predict how the industry will develop, which is why WE need to tell the industry what is possible and what isn't.
I also appreciate it that the commission may not like to take on an enforcer role, but it has that role in principle anyway. It just needs to be more emphatic in the way nomenclature is administered.

    On Sunday, January 8, 2017 2:17 PM, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Hinrich and others,

To be fair I think that opening up the option of online publication was effectively forced onto the ICZN and the rules they made were debated for some time and based on the models available at the time. The online publishing industry has since created entirely unpredictable models that the original discussions did not predict. I do not think anyone could have predicted the nature of what has become online publishing. It may, in hind sight, have been better to permit that industry to stabilize for another decade before permitting it to be a viable option for nomenclatural works. Maybe it would have been better to resist it altogether. However there was a lot of pressure to establish a set of rules of availability for online only publications. I find some of these journals outright devious in their attempts to validate their journals. Which do not meet the code.

Cheers Scott   

More information about the Taxacom mailing list