[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Jan 10 14:11:28 CST 2017


Thomas addressed the date issue MUCH better than I did.  I should have finished going through my inbox before replying to John's note on dates.

However, my soapbox argument in my reply to John on the other topic (registered=available) still stands...

Aloha,
RIch

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Thomas Pape
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:12 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Electronic publication
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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