[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

[Geoffrey Read]

Stephen,

The reality is that many online-before-print publishers are not following
the simple requirements to register their version-of-record in ZooBank
also.

I very much wish that authors *were* indeed aware of the issue and *were*
protecting their rightful priority by making their names Code compliant as
they should. That is a crunch issue at the moment. The idea of a
conspiracy of editors/authors further gaming the system by false
backdating frankly seems fairly far-fetched.

It amazes me how oblivious experienced taxonomists can be to
well-advertised code changes.

Geoff

On Wed, April 8, 2015 9:05 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>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