[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

[Stephen Thorpe]

Geoff,

I was merely pointing out that there are ways to circumvent priority if anyone really wanted to, so validly publishing online before print (in order to protect priority) is a bit pointless. Valid online publication is really only necessary for e-only publication, which is still relatively rare. Anyway, taxonomists seem to be becoming increasingly disinterested in Code compliance.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 8/4/15, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, gread at actrix.gen.nz, "'Frank T. Krell'" <frank.krell at dmns.org>
 Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2015, 12:31 PM
 
 
 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