[Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 2 15:10:28 CDT 2016
2016
Geoff,
What you say brings up an issue in need of clarification (Rich): If there are two or more records for the same journal (which haven't been merged), only one of which has a stated archive, what happens if an article is registered with the other record for the journal (i.e. the one without an archive)? If the duplicate journal records are subsequently merged, then presumably it then looks like the article was registered with a stated archive, but this poses something of a potential problem: anyone trying to determine Code compliance before merger of the duplicate journal records will see no stated archive on the article record and so will determine that it is not Code compliant. Anyone doing this after the merger will see what appears to be Code compliance. Is that right, Rich?
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2/10/16, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: gread at actrix.gen.nz, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 2 October, 2016, 7:12 PM
Stephen,
There are two registrations
for the journal. It seems you were looking at
the second (unnecessary) one. The first one has
had a PMC archive since
2013. But it was an
author initiated registration.
At least two of the articles published in 2014
seem to comply with the
Code in including a
LSID in the pdf and have registrations. So why
compliance is intermittent since, and
hit-and-miss I have no idea. It
seems
however, that with this journal it is up to the authors to
be savvy
about the Code, do the registration
work, and make sure a nomenclature
statement
is included.
Rather less
worrying overall on author ignorance / journal
intransigence
than initially appeared from
the story on Twitter.
Geoff
On Sun, October 2, 2016 5:22 pm, Stephen Thorpe
wrote:
> PS: Even if the articles had
cited the ZooBank LSIDs, it still wouldn't
> count until very recently, as there is no
stated archive for the journal
> before
May 30, 2016 (unless it was added for the specific
article)!
>
> BTW,
another issue that sometimes comes up with these "high
impact"
> journals is that they
sometimes relegate the taxonomy to supplementary
> word files, which don't count as Code
compliant!
>
>
Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 2/10/16, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
wrote:
>
> Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific
Reports
> To: "Stephen
Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: gread at actrix.gen.nz,
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Sunday, 2 October, 2016, 5:03
PM
>
> Hi
Stephen,
>
> Time
fixes the
> efirst-then-print
problem. Those journals don't have
> to
> register
papers and if they do not
> acknowledge
problems they create for
> others
> in the interim (taxa can be a year or
more in limbo)
> there's
> nothing to be done, other than
> chip away at them when the occasion
arises
> to complain.
>
> Scientific Reports
has about 12 papers
> registered in
ZooBank (by
> somebody). As
> ZooBank doesn't display a date or
author for edit
> actions it
> is not possible for the public to
> know when an entry arrived and who
did
> it.Â
>
One article has two entries - so something odd there.
>
> However, I checked
the pdfs of
> three of those articles
at random and they
> all lacked any
mention of ZooBank or LSIDS.Â
> The
paper with the
> Code-unpublished
new
> family isn't there in
ZooBank. Those authors
> published
a corrigendum last month, but
>
it's not about the ZooBank issue.
>
> Geoff
>
> On Sun,
> October 2, 2016 11:43 am, Stephen Thorpe
wrote:
> > Hi Geoff,
> > Well,
>
I'm not sure about "major high-profile
ones",
> as it doesn't
really
> > matter to me
> which journals are involved. I think
though that there
> are
> > ample problems with many of the
> "usual efirst-then-print
ones". Many
> > journals appear
to (rather opaquely)
> publish in 3
steps: (1) efirst
> > without
> allocation to an issue; followed by (2)
efirst publication
> of
> > final print version; followed by
(3)
> actual physical printing of
final
> > print
> version. It is (3) which is
nomenclaturally the most
> important
if
> > the ZooBank
> preregistration hasn't been done
properly (often due to
> lack
> > of a stated archive in the
ZooBank
> record, which hardly anyone
bothers to
> >
> check!), but it is also the hardest date
to determine,
> particularly since
> > there will be fewer
> subscriptions for print editions as most
libraries
> > slowly go digital
only. Potentially, it
> also creates
another problem
> > whereby it
> may still be necessary to pay for hard
copy subscriptions
> just
> > to determine true publication
> dates, even though everything else might
be
> > already paid for open access
and available
> digitally!
> > Cheers,
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
> >
>
--------------------------------------------
> > On Sat, 1/10/16, Geoffrey Read
<gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> wrote:
> >
> >Â Subject:
>
Re: [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific
> Reports
> >Â
To: "Stephen
> Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> >Â Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> gread at actrix.gen.nz
> >Â Received: Saturday, 1 October,
2016,
> 6:31 PM
>
>
> >
>
>Â Stephen,
> >
> >Â Can
>
>Â you name
> those journals?Â
I'm interested if there are
>
>Â other major
> >Â
> online-only high-profile
> >Â ones.The
>
usual efirst-then-print ones (Hello
>
>Â
> JMBA UK) I don't care
about, although
> >Â they're
a pain in the butt to
> track
> >Â when
>
>Â the
> articles are really
published, and the names become
>
>Â available.
> >
> >Â As evident from
> >Â
> the
thread yes indeed there are people who don't know
> >Â what
>
>Â constitutes
> Code-valid
publication.
> >Â But Nature
> staff should know.
> >
> >Â
Yes, the web site seems to have a pdf
>
>Â invisibility problem at the moment -
> >Â I used
>
>Â
> ResearchGate instead.
> >
> >Â
Geoff
> >
>
>Â On Sat,
> >Â October
> 1, 2016 6:11 pm, Stephen Thorpe
wrote:
> >Â > This isn't a
big deal! There
> are only
> >Â less than a handful of
> articles with
>
>Â >
> >Â new taxa. It
was up to the authors to
> ensure
Code
> >Â compliance. The
> website
> >Â
> seems odd,
> >Â though, and
I can't seem to find a
> way to get
a pdf of
> >Â any of
> >Â > the articles! Anyway,
there are
> >Â plenty of other
journals publishing
> more
> >Â > new taxa than this one,
all
> without valid
> >Â ZooBank
>
preregistration!
> >Â >
> >Â > Stephen
> >Â
> >
> >Â >
>
>Â
>
--------------------------------------------
> >Â > On Sat, 1/10/16, Geoff
Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> >Â wrote:
>
>Â >
> > >ÂÂ
Subject:
> >Â
> [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's
Scientific Reports
> >Â
> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > Received:
Saturday, 1 October,
> 2016,
> >Â 5:57 PM
>
>Â
> >
>
> > Has
> >Â
anyone here published taxonomy in
>
> >ÂÂ
> >Â
> "Scientific Reports",
Nature's
> > >ÂÂ
online-only open access
>
journal? Why
>
>Â aren't
> they
> > > registering new
taxa
> >Â in
> > >ÂÂ
> ZooBank for authors?
> >Â >
>
> > Twitter thread
>
>Â about the issue:
> >Â
> >
> >Â
>ÂÂ
> >Â
> https://twitter.com/BioInFocus/status/734870944330731520
> >Â >
>
> >ÂÂ
> Geoff
> > > --
> > > Geoffrey B.
> >Â Read, Ph.D.
> >Â
>
> Wellington, NEW
>
>Â ZEALAND
> >Â
> gread at actrix.gen.nz
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey B.
> Read, Ph.D.
> 8
Zaida Way, Maupuia
> Wellington, NEW
ZEALAND
> gread at actrix.gen.nz
>
>
>
--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list