[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Apr 7 16:05:05 CDT 2015
2015
>and the "when" part only really comes into play in cases where there are names in competition for priority<
Yes, but we seem to have a reality in which authors and publishers are "protecting" their new names, for the few months between online and print publication, by preregistering Online First articles on ZooBank. Given that the print issue typically follows in a few months, the only rational reason I can see for making the Online version available is "protection of priority". If you take what I wrote in my last post a step further, you will see that e-publications can easily be backdated by registering them on ZooBank before they are published (or even written!) and then citing the LSID plus a suitably backdated publication date in the work!
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 8/4/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, gread at actrix.gen.nz, "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2015, 9:54 AM
Hi Stephen,
As you note, mis-matches
between cited date (within work) and actual date
have always existed. Electronic works require
the addition of the date of
publication to
be within the work itself, but nobody ever actually
believed
that such dates could always be
trusted to be accurate.
You've nicely outlined EXACTLY why I have
always been opposed to the
"registered+published=available"
model. The fundamental issue is that, for
the first time, we have Code requirements that
are de-coupled in time. As
such, date of
availability must be regarded as the latter of two
separate
things (registration requirements
fulfilled, and publication requirements
fulfilled). That's not complex per-se,
but it does establish a fundamental
requirement for checking two things (instead of
one). Fortunately, one of
those things is
straightforward (date of registration). Note: one thing
that
is not currently on the ZooBank
website, but could be added, is the date on
which all requirements of registration for
electronic works were completed.
I plan to
add this when I have time.
Importantly however, it's easier to
determine *that* a work is available,
than
it is to determine *when* it was available, and the
"when" part only
really comes into
play in cases where there are names in competition for
priority.
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: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:33 AM
> To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
gread at actrix.gen.nz;
'Frank T. Krell'
> Subject: RE:
[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
>
> >Not really all
that complex, actually<
>
> Actually, the "complexities" I
had in mind include this scenario: ZooBank
> registration happens after e-publication,
the LSID is added to the work,
but the
> citation in the work of the initial
publication date isn't changed. So,
the
cited
> date isn't the valid date of
publication, but that is OK, since apparently
cited
> publication dates
can be incorrect. So, presumably, we must take the date
of
> ZooBank registration to
be the valid date of publication. But, the LSID
might not
> have been added
to the work until sometime after that date.
Retrospectively,
> there
does not seem to be any way to determine when the LSID was
added to
> the work.
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 7/4/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications
code-compliant?
> To:
"'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
gread at actrix.gen.nz,
"'Frank T. Krell'"
>
<Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
> Received: Tuesday, 7 April, 2015, 7:38
PM
>
> > Even
that is
> somewhat unclear. If the PDF
is reupped with (previously
>
missing)
> > evidence of ZooBank
> preregistration (where "pre-"
means "before the date > reupped"), then
it
> might be available
before the print edition, but there are a > lot of
> complexities ...
>
> The general consensus -- at
> least among Commissioners I have
discussed this with -- is that a work
>
becomes available the moment it fulfills all requirements
of the Code.
This
> has
always been true for printed works; and there is no reason
to think
it
> should be
any different for electronic works. Using your
hypothetical
example
>
above, the moment the "reupped" PDF (with
included evidence for ZooBank
>
registration) is obtainable (and assuming all other
criteria are
fulfilled), is the
> moment the work becomes available. The
same would apply to cases when
> the
ZooBank record is subsequently updated to include required
elements,
> such as the ISSN or
indication of an online Archive.
>
> Not
> really all
that complex, actually.
>
> Of course, all of these problems will
vanish when if/when we adopt the
>
Registered=Available model of registration (leaving
"Publication" to the
realm
> of science; not part of the realm of
nomenclatural availability).
>
> 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
>
>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list