[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Apr 13 15:32:24 CDT 2015
2015
I've generally been staying out of this discussion -- in part because this horse has already been repeatedly beaten to a pulp; and in part because I've just been too busy with other things. However, I happened to re-read something just now that PERFECTLY captures my own perspective of how to solve all of this:
"...it seems likely, in the longer term, and with the development of new information systems, that the solution will not lie in patching up a definition of publication but, rather, in scrapping it and finding a means of replacing "publication" as a primary determinant of availability."
Brilliant! EXACTLY right, in my opinion!
By the way, here's the source of the quote:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?booksection=introduction
[Second paragraph under the heading "Development of underlying principles"]
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: Frank T. Krell [mailto:Frank.Krell at dmns.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 5:55 AM
> To: Sue Gardner; 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?
>
> 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