Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Apr 13 16:45:36 CDT 2015 

One simple way that this might work is along the lines of what is already the case for microbe nomenclature. In microbiology, bacteria names published in any journal other than IJSEM are not available until they are validated in IJSEM, and everybody understands that they date from the IJSEM validation date (though I'm not so sure that every zoologist is capable of understanding anything!) Validation would seem to require, as a minimum, verification that the names have indeed been published.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 14/4/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] are early online publications code-compliant?
 To: "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, "'Sue Gardner'" <sgardner2 at unl.edu>, "'John Noyes'" <j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk>, "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, gread at actrix.gen.nz
 Received: Tuesday, 14 April, 2015, 9:32 AM
 
 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