[Taxacom] Article 8 compliance
j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
Thu Mar 30 11:55:13 CDT 2017
Fair enough, but maybe it is not so much crafting the 5th edition of the Code to offer a more stable solution but crafting ZooBank to do that. Once done you might find it easier to convince everyone that it is the way forward. Many of us could be convinced relatively easily, but we would also need to be convinced about the future sustainability of ZooBank. At the moment I suspect that would be difficult. Do you have a cunning plan? By any reckoning it would take an investment of at least $10m. Meanwhile we still have to live with the 4th edition and the Article 8 amendment . . .
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
London SW7 5BD
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):
From: Richard Pyle [mailto:pylediver at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: 30 March 2017 17:31
To: John Noyes; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Article 8 compliance
As the administrator of ZooBank, I have seen many such cases along the lines of what you describe. Of course, this sort of thing is perfectly in keeping with the Amended ICZN Code, because the Code itself has no provisions related to terms such as "version of record", DOIs, pagination, etc. The closest thing in the Code that might affect such cases is Art. 9.9, which states that "preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication" are among the things that do not constitute a published work. Unfortunately, this article has essentially no meaning, because it is circular (it essentially states that a work is not published before it is published -- because the word "published" and "publication" are both in the sense of the Code, not in the sense of common use of these words).
Although it has been said many times before on this list, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the core provisions of the Code were established in an era when paper-based publications were the primary mode of communication among scientists. In such a paradigm, there were rarely subtly different alternate versions of the same "work", simply because of the cost of generating and distributing numerous physical copies. When alternate versions did exist, they were usually unambiguously marked as such ("Second Edition", "Revised Edition", etc.). In this context, it made perfect sense for published works to be the fundamental vehicle through which nomenclatural acts (including new names) were established.
Of course, starting around a decade or so ago, the paradigm of communication among scientists began to change dramatically, shifting from stacks of "thin slices of wood" (as my friend Paul Kirk likes to say) shipped all over the planet to information dissemination via the internet. Pressure soon built on the Commission to Amend the Code to accommodate so-called "electronically published Works", and the Commission did the best it could to put some "Band-Aids" on the existing language of the Code to accommodate this major paradigm shift. The Amendment for electronic publications was always considered a temporary fix to tide the community over until the 5th Edition of the Code took effect. Frankly, I think it's worked much better than many of us expected it to; but of course it's still not perfect. And it couldn't possibly have been perfect simply because any enforced version of the Code needs to be stable (i.e., it can't change every year lest confusion reign among the community), yet the paradigm of "publication" HAS been (and still is) very dynamic.
The point I'm trying to make is that what zoological taxonomists should do at this stage is voice their opinion about how the 5th Edition SHOULD be crafted to offer a more permanent/stable solution going forward. My own opinion, after having spent nearly 20 years thinking very hard about this exact issue, is well established in the public record. In short, I think the time has come when we should acknowledge the existence of the internet as the fundamental mechanism of communication and information dissemination among scientists (all humans, really), and rather than constantly struggle with the implications of this (first and foremost, the slippery, inconsistent, and dynamic paradigm of "publication"), we should craft the 5th Edition of the Code to embrace this. We should separate the legalistic requirements of nomenclatural availability from the scientific practice of "publication" (paper or electronic), and develop a system (modelled after ZooBank, GenBank, and other similar online resources) that allows objective determination of availability, and establishes nomenclatural priority to the millisecond.
Apologies for the soap-box rant....
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
> John Noyes
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:33 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Article 8 compliance
> Hi everyone,
> I thought it might be of interest to at least some of you with regards
> to changes of so-called versions of record and how some journals are
> doing this to make an article compliant with Article 8 of the ICZN.
> On several occasions recently I have noted that some journals that
> have changed their publication from print and e-publication to
> e-publication only, often without any indication that they have done
> so. In at least two cases, the new, e-only journals have published
> articles that included novel nomenclatural acts. The publisher stated
> on their web site and/or on the article itself that it was the final
> version/version of record. In these cases the articles were not
> Article 8 compliant as neither included evidence of preregistration on
> ZooBank. A while later (in both cases the following year) the
> publisher reissued the same article with the same DOI, journal title,
> volume and page numbers with a statement hidden away in the text that
> the article had been preregistered on ZooBank, thus changing the
> version of record (final version) and consequently the status of the
> new names proposed therein. Being the custodian of a well-used on-line
> taxonomic database I had initially included the new names in the database as unavailable because they were non-code compliant. Had I been unaware of the change to the so-called versions of record they would have remained that way.
> Luckily, during a subsequent visit to the publisher's web site I
> became aware of the changes. In such cases I believe that if a
> publisher changes the version of record in any way they must republish
> it as a separate article compiled in a different volume with different
> pagination and with a different DOI so that the correction does not go unnoticed. Has anyone else come across similar cases?
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Life Sciences
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> 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):
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom