[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
Karl Magnacca
kmagnacca at wesleyan.edu
Mon Apr 13 13:31:46 CDT 2015
2015
It seems to me that a big part of the underlying problem is the
increasingly long delay in traditional journals between not just
acceptance but final layout, resulting in an online publication that
has all the appearance of the "final" version except for the page
numbers. The typeset online-early version is usually produced
within less than a month of final acceptance, so why does it then
take another nine months to a year to appear in "final" version? If
papers came out in a timely fashion - as, it seems, they did not
that long ago - this might be an issue in a few rare cases but not
nearly as many.
Karl
On Mon, April 13, 2015 3:55 pm, Frank T. Krell wrote:
> Taxonomists vote already with their feet by choosing where to
> submit.
> Many of them are happy with early online publication and don't care
> about changing page numbering, some are not. I am afraid there
> won't be a unified voice.
> I have no problems with changing metadata although it is a nuisance
> - BUT with increasing single article publishing, I am pretty sure
> that the problem will largely go away.
>
> Frank
>
>
> Dr. Frank-T. Krell, Chair, ZooBank Committee
> http://zoobank.org
> Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
> Curator of Entomology
> Department of Zoology
> Denver Museum of Nature & Science
> 2001 Colorado Boulevard
> Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA
> Frank.Krell at dmns.org
> Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244
> Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492
> http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
> lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Sue Gardner
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:20 AM
> To: John Noyes; '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?
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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