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

[Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 2 15:18:58 CDT 2016 

Hi David,
>It seems odd that publishers don't want to make it easier to cite their papers<
For general purposes, papers should be cited from first appearance online. It is only for nomenclatural purposes that this is not so. It isn't clear to me how papers should be cited in references of taxonomic works. They probably should be dated from first appearance online (particularly in contexts which aren't wholly taxonomic/nomenclatural), even though new names created therein may date from the next calendar year! For example Aus bus Smith, 2016, with original publication Smith (2015). Otherwise, we could have a fairly absurd situation whereby a taxonomic paper and a natural history paper published online on the same day in the same journal must be cited with a different year! I know nobody wants to comment on this, but again I make the point that the electronic amendment was tailored to the Zootaxa publishing model, with minimal consideration of alternative models.
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 3/10/16, David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's Scientific Reports
 To: 
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 3 October, 2016, 9:09 AM
 
 Although the online-first
 approach hasn't been a major problem in terms of
 scooping names, it's a major pain for
 bibliographic reference.  What is the
 date
 of a paper?  Often it's officially published in final
 form in the
 following calendar year or
 later.  It seems odd that publishers don't want
 to make it easier to cite their papers.
 
 On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 12:03
 AM, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 wrote:
 
 > 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.  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.  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:
 > >
 > > 
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New taxonomy in Nature's
 Scientific Reports
 > >  To:
 "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 > >  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 > >  Received: Saturday, 1 October,
 2016, 6:31 PM
 > >
 >
 >
 > >  Stephen,
 > >
 > >  Can
 > >  you name those journals?  I'm
 interested if there are
 > >  other
 major
 > >  online-only
 high-profile
 > >  ones.The usual
 efirst-then-print ones (Hello
 > > 
 JMBA UK) I don't care about, although
 > >  they're a pain in the butt to
 track
 > >  when
 >
 >  the articles are really published, and the names
 become
 > >  available.
 > >
 > >  As
 evident from
 > >  the thread yes
 indeed there are people who don't know
 > >  what
 > > 
 constitutes Code-valid publication.
 >
 >  But Nature staff should know.
 >
 >
 > >  Yes, the web site seems to
 have a pdf
 > >  invisibility problem
 at the moment -
 > >  I used
 > >  ResearchGate instead.
 > >
 > >  Geoff
 > >
 > >  On
 Sat,
 > >  October 1, 2016 6:11 pm,
 Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > >  > This
 isn't a big deal! There are only
 >
 >  less than a handful of articles with
 > >  >
 > > 
 new taxa. It was up to the authors to ensure Code
 > >  compliance. The website
 > >  > seems odd,
 > >  though, and I can't seem to
 find a way to get a pdf of
 > >  any
 of
 > >  > the articles! Anyway,
 there are
 > >  plenty of other
 journals publishing more
 > >  >
 new taxa than this one, all without valid
 > >  ZooBank preregistration!
 > >  >
 > > 
 > Stephen
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > > 
 --------------------------------------------
 > >  > On Sat, 1/10/16, Geoff Read
 <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
 > >  wrote:
 > > 
 >
 > >  >  Subject:
 > >  [Taxacom] New taxonomy in
 Nature's Scientific Reports
 > > 
 >  To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > >  >  Received: Saturday, 1
 October, 2016,
 > >  5:57 PM
 > >  >
 > > 
 >  Has
 > >  anyone here
 published taxonomy in
 > >  >Â
 > >  "Scientific Reports",
 Nature's
 > >  > 
 online-only open access journal?  Why
 > >  aren't they
 > >  >  registering new taxa
 > >  in
 > > 
 >  ZooBank for authors?
 > > 
 >
 > >  >  Twitter thread
 > >  about the issue:
 > >  >
 > > 
 >Â
 > >  https://twitter.com/BioInFocus/status/734870944330731520
 > >  >
 > > 
 >  Geoff
 > >  >  --
 > >  >  Geoffrey B.
 > >  Read, Ph.D.
 >
 >  >  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
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > 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
 >
 > Injecting
 Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
 >
 
 
 
 -- 
 Dr. David Campbell
 Assistant Professor, Geology
 Department of Natural Sciences
 Box 7270
 Gardner-Webb
 University
 Boiling Springs NC 28017
 _______________________________________________
 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
 
 Injecting Intellectual
 Liquidity for 29 years.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list