[Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Wed Jan 7 22:01:56 CST 2015

Stephen does not want to distinguish between the content of the historical document and the bibliographical metadata of the historical document. The content of the Version of Record is immutable. So the historical document remains always available, just with different bibliographical metadata. Serious publishers do not change the content of the Version of Record but issue Corrigenda. If they mess with the Version of Record, then they are not to be considered serious publishers.

I am finalizing a manuscript analysing the different online-early publication models of all the major publishers. It is a mixed bag. Some publishers do not consider the online-early publication the version of record and allow changes. Others are strict and do not allow changes. One has to know who does what, details which are sometimes hidden on their webpages or not revealed at all. That's why I am writing this paper (which I will make openly available when accepted - don't listen, ICZN!).

Frank

Dr. Frank-T. Krell
Curator of Entomology 
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
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

________________________________________
From: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 8:49 PM
To: KenWalker
Cc: Taxacom; Pete Cranston
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion

Well, it all depends on how confident we can be that content really doesn't change from Online First to Print edition versions. Bear in mind that it doesn't only apply to prestigious publishers, but also to dodgy publishers and self-publishers. I have experience of one, fairly prestigious and respected publisher, who I won't name (not based here in N.Z.) They have an e-only journal (among others). They published a paper in it containing a nomenclatural act (lectotype designation) without having registered it on ZooBank. I pointed this out to them. They then registered it and republished with a new publication date, claiming the previous version to be an "accidental pre-release". Is this a problem? Maybe, maybe not. It wasn't registered before it was published electronically, but it now looks like it was. As I already said, the Code is messy on this. Another well-known publisher misunderstood the Code and published electronically ahead of the stated
 publication dates in the works, claiming that the latter was "the official publication date", when the publications would be archived, and what happens before that on their website was irrelevant! This misunderstanding creates confusion and it becomes virtually impossible to determine actual valid publication dates...

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/1/15, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>, "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>, "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Pete Cranston" <pscranston at gmail.com>
 Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 4:28 PM

 >The publisher may be
 tempted to "rewrite history" so as to hide errors
 in the original document.

 You seem to suggest that it will be the
 publisher who will find mistakes in an EV version of a paper
 and then that the publisher will know how to correct the
 error. I do not believe that publishers have that level of
 in-house expertise or would be silly enough to make
 non-author authorised changes to a published paper.

 More than likely, only the
 author(s) will be the one to find a mistake(s). The author
 would then have to convince the journal editor to convince
 the publisher to make changes between the EV version and the
 printed archived version. Any step along that pathway can
 say 'NO!"

 Changes
 = money;  I just do not think that journals will have an
 open pocket policy to fund the publisher to make author
 found errors after publication and having been through
 peer-review and subject editorial review.

 We spoke to our archiving
 publisher about also archiving the EV version as well as the
 printed version and again it was all a matter of money. You
 want both archived then you pay extra and strike a new
 contract.

 Publishers need
 to make profits not to be subservient to authors whims and
 wishes.

 Ken

 Sent from my iPad

 > On 8 Jan 2015, at 1:37
 pm, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:
 >
 > People are
 missing the important point. It isn't directly about
 "versions" but about historical documents. The EV
 version is contained on a historical document (in the form
 of a PDF). Any new names became available in that historical
 document. If that document is trashed and replaced, then we
 don't have the original document any longer, and so we
 CANNOT VERIFY that the content is exactly the same. The
 publisher may be tempted to "rewrite history" so
 as to hide errors in the original document.
 >
 > Stephen
 >
 >
 --------------------------------------------
 > On Thu, 8/1/15, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
 wrote:
 >
 > Subject:
 Re: [Taxacom] Proofs for opinion
 > To:
 "Donat Agosti" <agosti at amnh.org>
 > Cc: "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org>,
 "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>,
 "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
 "Pete Cranston" <pscranston at gmail.com>
 > Received: Thursday, 8 January, 2015, 3:07
 PM
 >
 >> the
 publication does
 > not change when adding
 page numbers?
 >
 >
 Excellent point Donat and thank you.
 >
 > Many people get "hung
 > up" on the non-paginated EV version
 which changes to a
 > paginated final
 print version - if the journal has a printed
 > run. When the ICZN removed the page
 priority rule, it made
 > pagination
 "metadata" not "content".
 > Therefore, the content does not change
 between the EV non-
 > paginated and
 paginated final print. Of course, this
 >
 "problem" only exists where a journal produces
 a
 > printed version months after the EV
 version.
 >
 > This is
 why it is so important
 > to accept EV
 publications as valid. Imagine a student or
 > worker has a paper accepted for
 publication but has to wait,
 > for our
 Austral Entomology journal, over 120 days on average
 > for the printed version to appear before
 the author can cite
 > the paper in grants
 and on a CV.  As a student, finishing a
 > degree and looking for a post-doc or a
 job, the wait in
 > terrible.  Our EV
 version is out in less than 30 days.
 >
 > Ken
 >
 > Sent from my iPad
 >
 > On 8 Jan 2015, at 11:06 am, Donat Agosti
 <agosti at amnh.org>
 > wrote:
 >>
 >> 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.
 >
 >
 >
 > This e-mail
 > is solely for the named addressee and may
 be confidential.
 > You should only read,
 disclose, transmit, copy, distribute,
 >
 act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you
 are
 > authorised to do so. If you are not
 the intended recipient
 > of this e-mail,
 please notify mailto:postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au
 > by email immediately, or notify the sender
 and then destroy
 > any copy of this
 message. Views expressed in this email are
 > those of the individual sender, except
 where specifically
 > stated to be those
 of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum
 > Victoria does not represent, warrant or
 guarantee that the
 > integrity of this
 communication has been maintained nor that
 > it is free from errors, virus or
 interference.
 >
 >

 This e-mail
 is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential.
 You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute,
 act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are
 authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient
 of this e-mail, please notify mailto:postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au
 by email immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy
 any copy of this message. Views expressed in this email are
 those of the individual sender, except where specifically
 stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum
 Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
 integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that
 it is free from errors, virus or interference.

_______________________________________________
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.