[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
Sue Gardner
sgardner2 at unl.edu
Mon Apr 13 09:19:45 CDT 2015
2015
John posed an important question: "Shouldn't the taxonomists be telling the publishers how to do this and not the other way around?"
As an observer off to the side, I have to chime in and say: -absolutely yes-. The publishers should cater to your needs. As taxonomists, you should not have to adapt to their choices. Be clear, objective, and preferably unified in your voice on this and, if one publisher doesn't serve your needs, move along to a publisher that does.
Sue Ann Gardner, MLS
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Discovery and Resource Management
302S Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-4100 USA
sgardner2 at unl.edu
402-472-8566
________________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 3:54 AM
To: 'Stephen Thorpe'; 'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; gread at actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
Hi Stephen,
I am not being inflexible on this. I am trying to be objective (which really should be viewed as being more constructive rather than less). It is not a matter of recognising the availability of new names. It is a matter of the date upon which these names and nomenclatural acts become available - from the prepub date or from the publication date of the compiled version. It is also a matter of which pagination and volume number to use (on occasion there is only a DOI) when citing the article or its contents. Shouldn't the taxonomists be telling the publishers how to do this and not the other way around? I have no argument with publishers who publish with fixed metadata - it is more with those that publish with variable metadata. After all if more than one publisher (there are at least three that I know of) can publish with fixed metadata then they could all could do it very easily. Personally I do not really see there is any wiggle room in the Code on this if you try to be completely objective about it. It says what it says irrespective of whether there is any mention of specific types of prepubications or metadata. If there is any disagreement in the interpretation of what is stated in the Code then it needs to be changed so that there is only one way of interpreting it.
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: 09 April 2015 21:54
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?
Hi John,
I have some sympathy with your views, but I don't see it as constructive to be inflexible on this. The reality is that e-publication in zoology was largely influenced by one person, who's publishing company does not prepublish without already fixed metadata. This is largely because that person has complete control over all stages of publication. Many other publishers are not like this. The electronic amendment really hasn't taken them into account properly. But given that there is wiggle room in the Code to allow prepubs without metadata (it is not explicit, but neither is it explicitly ruled out), I think we should run with it rather than fail to recognise a great many new names. New names can fail to be strictly speaking available for all sorts of subtle reasons, but there is really no harm in continuing to use those names for taxa that would otherwise be without any name.
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/4/15, John Noyes <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "'deepreef at bishopmuseum.org'" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "gread at actrix.gen.nz" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
Received: Thursday, 9 April, 2015, 9:15 PM
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list