[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

[Stephen Thorpe]

The problem, Donat, is that this is not formalised in the Code. I agree that it makes sense, and for pragmatic reasons I accept it, but there is still the problem of verification, i.e. that the publisher didn't try to "pull a fast one" by adding in a forgotten ZooBank LSID after the Early View version was first published online. Publishers don't like making mistakes, and sometimes try to hide them...

Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/1/15, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "KenWalker" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 1:06 PM
 
 The authors explain that
 from a formal publishing point of view (the publishers
 should be the one that define what a publication is and not
 the one who creates the content) the publication does not
 change when adding page numbers?
 
 "Recommendations on Journal Article
 Versions which state clearly that the addition of
 bibliographical details, namely pagination and volume/issue
 number, are not part of the content of a paper and do not
 change the version of an article (NISO/ALPSP Journal Article
 Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group, 2008; Morgan 2008).
 If the content of the early electronic version is immutable,
 apart from bibliographical details, then this early
 electronic version is the Version of Record following
 NISO/ALPSP Recommendations:"
 
 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/syen.12119/
 
 I can accept this
 
 Donat
 
 
 
 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Neal Evenhuis
 Sent: Thursday,
 January 8, 2015 1:00 AM
 To: Stephen Thorpe;
 Taxacom; KenWalker
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
 Proofs for opinion
 
 On
 Stardate 1/7/15 1:43 PM, Star Commander "Stephen
 Thorpe"
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 
 >how can we
 verify that they were indeed validly published. Answer: ONLY
 
 >IF the EARLY VIEW version (PDF) has
 been archived and is accessible. As 
 >far
 as I can tell, if anything at all gets archived, it is the
 final 
 >paginated version. This could be
 a problem ...
 
 ***********
 That was the
 problem that came up in the discussions among a number of us
 that led to this paper. The early view is indeed a valid
 publication at the time it comes online (any clicking on the
 DOI leads you to the archived electronic early view). But
 apparently, the early view version gets trashed once the
 paginated journal version of the article comes out.
 If it is archived anywhere, I could not find
 it. Clicking on the same DOI [= archived version] goes
 directly to the paged version and not the early view
 publication.
 
 One would
 think that "archiving" means permanence, but this
 is not so when the original archived version changes.
 
 You should not be able to do a
 "bait and switch" in nomenclature.
 
 -Neal
 
 
 
 This message
 is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its
 contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any
 unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or
 its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this
 message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply
 mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions
 expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the
 views of the Bishop Museum.
 _______________________________________________
 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.