[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Thu Apr 9 03:15:33 CDT 2015

Hi Stephen,

As you know, I disagree with you and a few others with regards to the so-called metadata. I believe that the page numbers and volume numbers are part of the article because, as you say, they act as a signpost to specific parts of the article. Where does "metadata" start and end? For instance, if for some reason, the figure numbers were changed but the actual content of the article were not changed then do figure numbers constitute metadata as they only point to specific parts of the article. The same could be said of other information. So far as I know there is no definition of metadata in the Code and as it stands prepublications are in conflict with the code if any part of the article is changed and that includes pages numbers, volume numbers etc. Until such a time that metadata is defined in the code and the code says that changes in metadata are allowed and do not make the prepublication unavailable then I, and others, shall continue to regards prepubs as unavailable. I hope there is a change in the Code that defines this one way or the other, but at the same time I hope this change is not retrospective as the fourth edition was because this causes all sorts of unseen, unwanted problems.

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: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: 08 April 2015 21:47
To: 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'; John Noyes
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

John,

The prepub and the "compiled" article are *the same version* (or should be). The metadata isn't part of the article, so if two articles differ only in metadata, they are the same version. Versions differ only if the content differs. The metadata is useful for signposting (e.g. the start page of a description in a long article), so it makes sense to use the compiled page numbers when these are assigned (and before then, or alternatively, one can use, e.g. [6] for the sixth page of the article). There may be a problem for e-only publications without pagination, but these are still rare. I do not understand you when you say [quote] However when the compiled version is published the prepublication is no longer available (or am I wrong here) only the compiled version, with the different pagination and volume number, is available [unquote]. Do you mean "available" in the nomenclatural sense, or in the everyday sense?

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 8/4/15, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
 To: "'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "gread at actrix.gen.nz" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2015, 11:11 PM

 Dear Rich and others,

 I still have this problem
 about prepubs (EarlyView, etc.). I know that many of you  think that "metadata" is not important, but when  maintaining a taxonomic catalogue it is difficult to know  whether one should enter the pagination of the  prepublication or that of the compiled publication. The  correct pagination is important, especially where many taxa  are dealt with in the same publication. There is also the  problem of volume number which is often omitted from the  prepublication. If the version of record, in the case of  prepublications, is the version where the name is first made  available then this is the one that has the correct  pagination. However when the compiled version is published  the prepublication is no longer available (or am I wrong
 here) only the compiled version, with the different  pagination and volume number, is available. I know it seems  to be a minor thing but it becomes important (to me at
 least) when cataloguing or maintaining a database, whether  it be on-line or otherwise. I am glad that Frank is trying  to clear up the problem, but in my view, we are being pushed  into this by the publishers and it is unnecessary. I do not  think that prepublications are necessary in taxonomy. At the  moment we have two differing views, one driven by the  publishers (that prepublications are OK), and one that is  held by the majority of taxonomists that I have discussed  this with (that prepubs are not OK). If publishers could  include the correct pagination and volume number with the
 (uncompiled) prepublication (i.e. an exact copy of the  compiled version then I would have no problem in accepting  the publication as available, but as it stands I find this  difficult because it is apparently in conflict with the code  as it stands. 

 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: 07 April
 2015 07:39
 To: 'Stephen Thorpe'
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are early online  publications code-compliant?

 > 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

 _______________________________________________
 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

 Celebrating 28 years of
 Taxacom in 2015.