[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Tue Jan 10 07:12:18 CST 2017


It is correct that the zoological Code uses "date" with the implicit meaning of year-month-day, which is also the meaning of that term in general.
Note, for example, that a date can be "incompletely specified" (Art. 21.3), which means that when only the year (or year and month) is given, this is an incompletely specified date of publication, in which case the date of publication will be fixed by a specific regulation.

The ICZN Glossary has a definition of "date of publication", which also implicitly points to this being a specific day.
Note, however, that Article 21.3 operates with the concept of "Date incompletely specified", which may be construed to mean that a date [of publication] can be specified even if it is not complete. Article 8.5.2. requires that a work states the date of publication, and when this date is given without a specific day, it is completed as regulated by Article 21.

Note also, that the Code does not regulate cases, where the date of publication is given in error. In my opinion, electronic works with an erroneous date should still be considered as published (with the date of publication corrected to reflect reality), just as electronic works with incomplete dates should be considered as published (with the date of publication corrected as regulated by the Code).

/Thomas Pape


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Noyes
Sent: 10. januar 2017 12:50
To: 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'; 'Hinrich Kaiser'; 'Scott Thomson'
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Electronic publication

Rich's reply to correct Frank's post brought up a bit of a conundrum that has been bothering me for a while:

"The Code does not require that electronic works be deposited in an online archive.  It requires that the work be registered in ZooBank, that the ZooBank record indicates the ISSN/ISBN and *intended* archive, and that THE WORK ITSELF CONTAIN THE DATE OF PUBLICATION and evidence of registration."

I have always held that the date of publication should include the day month and year. It is the practice of many publishers to include only the year of publication. To me this is contrary to what the Code states and therefore any electronic works that include only the year of publication  in the article itself are unavailable. Many have argued against this saying the year is sufficient and that this is covered by Article 21 in the fourth edition of the Code. I would argue that Article 21 of the Code implicitly states that the date must include the day, month and year for the purposes of nomenclature and determining priority 

"Article 21. Date of publication.

Article 21.1. Date to be adopted  . . is to be determined in accordance with the following provisions.
21.2 Date specified." This infers that date should include day month and year because Article 21.3. 
Implicitly states that that the date of publication must include the day, month and year of publication. It says (Article 21,3) that if the “. . . day of publication is not specified in a work . . .  . the date to be adopted is . . . .”

This is also supported by Article 3  “The date 1 January 1758 is arbitrarily fixed in this Code as the starting point of zoological nomenclature . . . “ Note the date here is the day month and year not just the year or month and year.

If you check the dictionary definition, date is defined as something like  - A specific day on which an event takes place.

Also the legal definition of date includes day, month and year.

I can find no definition of date that defines it as only the year. 

Any future edition of the code, where publication date is given this level of importance, must explicitly define what is meant by date to prevent future ambiguity.

Also, because of the continued uncertainty (despite Frank's article) caused by early published electronic works I would change 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). An advance publication  (e.g. “version of record”) of a journal article may be considered available only if the article itself contains the volume number of that journal in which the article will be contained and identical  pagination to the final version.

Apart from differing pagination and lack of volume number many so called versions of record differ quite substantially in layout and content from the final version. Where do we draw the line . . . .

Yes, I have a bee in my bonnet about this, but if we continue to publish nomenclatural acts in the current way, unless something is done soon we shall be building up problems for the future.

John 

John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: 09 January 2017 22:29
To: 'Hinrich Kaiser'; 'Scott Thomson'
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Electronic publication

I changed the subject line of this thread to be more relevant to the discussion.

First, a minor correction to Frank's post:  The Code does not require that electronic works be deposited in an online archive.  It requires that the work be registered in ZooBank, that the ZooBank record indicates the ISSN/ISBN and *intended* archive, and that the work itself contain the date of publication and evidence of registration.  Any version of a work ("pre-published", or otherwise) that fails to include these last two items is not considered published in the sense of the Code, so names and acts established therein are not available.

Scott's summary very accurately represents the reality.  There was enormous pressure to accommodate electronic publication under the Code (and rightly so, as evident from hindsight), and there was a four-year period where the community was free to comment on how the new rules should be implemented.

As to Hinrich's point that the Commission should be proactive, this is PRECISELY what is happening (and, to a large extent, has been happening since at least 2005).  The Commission was always well-aware that the Amendment to accommodate electronic publication was a stop-gap measure; it was never intended as the permanent solution.  A permanent solution would have been very unwise back then as, as has been pointed out, the publication landscape is still very-much dynamic and evolving. Rather, the Amendment was to allow a test period to discover what the problems with both electronic publication and online registration are, and use that knowledge to refine a more long-term solution through the 5th Edition of the Code.

And this is EXACTLY what is happening now.

I've ranted many times on this list and elsewhere about my own views on the matter, so I won't repeat them in detail here. There is no doubt in my mind that "publication" as we use that word will cease to be the vehicle through which new names and nomenclatural acts are established.  The only questions are when this will happen, and precisely how it will be implemented.  

I think I disagree with some of the other sentiments expressed by Hinrich below, but his assertions are too vague and imprecise to address directly.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences | Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology | Dive Safety Officer Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Hinrich Kaiser
> Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 9:31 AM
> To: Scott Thomson
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 129, Issue 4
> 
> 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.
> Hinrich
> 
> 
> 
>     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
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> 
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org


Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org


Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list