[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Mon Jan 9 16:40:57 CST 2017

Rich Pyle said: 'There is no doubt in my mind that "publication" as we use that word will cease to be the vehicle through which new names and nomenclatural acts are established.  The only questions are when this will happen, and precisely how it will be implemented'.

There is some doubt in my mind. The issue is complicated, but this would, on the face of it, require taking the work of taxonomists out of the system of publication metrics which dominates professional science. This could result in even less taxonomy being done by professional scientists, who would still be under pressure from their employers to "publish or perish". It is hard to see how professional taxonomy could survive in todays world outside of the system of publication metrics. At least around here, we are already sliding down a slippery slope whereby less taxonomy is being done (because it takes too much time and easily becomes unprofitable) and publications are becoming more "bandwagon orientated" nonsense (e.g. "climate change research") simply designed to burn public money as quickly (and therefore profitably) as possible. Taking taxonomy out of publications altogether might be the final nail in the coffin of taxonomy and it just won't get done at all.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/1/17, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: [Taxacom] Electronic publication
 To: "'Hinrich Kaiser'" <chalcopis at yahoo.com>, "'Scott Thomson'" <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Tuesday, 10 January, 2017, 11:29 AM

 I changed the subject line of this
 thread to be more relevant to the discussion.

 First, a minor correction to Frank's post:  The Code
 does not require that electronic works be deposited in an
 online archive.  It requires that the work be
 registered in ZooBank, that the ZooBank record indicates the
 ISSN/ISBN and *intended* archive, and that the work itself
 contain the date of publication and evidence of
 registration.  Any version of a work ("pre-published",
 or otherwise) that fails to include these last two items is
 not considered published in the sense of the Code, so names
 and acts established therein are not available.

 Scott's summary very accurately represents the
 reality.  There was enormous pressure to accommodate
 electronic publication under the Code (and rightly so, as
 evident from hindsight), and there was a four-year period
 where the community was free to comment on how the new rules
 should be implemented.

 As to Hinrich's point that the Commission should be
 proactive, this is PRECISELY what is happening (and, to a
 large extent, has been happening since at least 2005). 
 The Commission was always well-aware that the Amendment to
 accommodate electronic publication was a stop-gap measure;
 it was never intended as the permanent solution.  A
 permanent solution would have been very unwise back then as,
 as has been pointed out, the publication landscape is still
 very-much dynamic and evolving. Rather, the Amendment was to
 allow a test period to discover what the problems with both
 electronic publication and online registration are, and use
 that knowledge to refine a more long-term solution through
 the 5th Edition of the Code.

 And this is EXACTLY what is happening now.

 I've ranted many times on this list and elsewhere about my
 own views on the matter, so I won't repeat them in detail
 here. There is no doubt in my mind that "publication" as we
 use that word will cease to be the vehicle through which new
 names and nomenclatural acts are established.  The only
 questions are when this will happen, and precisely how it
 will be implemented.  

 I think I disagree with some of the other sentiments
 expressed by Hinrich below, but his assertions are too vague
 and imprecise to address directly.

 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: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf
 > Of Hinrich Kaiser
 > Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 9:31 AM
 > To: Scott Thomson
 > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 129, Issue
 4
 > 
 > Hi Everyone,
 > I appreciate Scott's comment, but this is exactly what
 I think could be done
 > better. The Commission should not try to work along
 parameters developed
 > by the publishing industry, but it should develop and
 adopt an ICZN standard.
 > That standard would then be our benchmark as
 taxonomists, according to
 > which we would choose the vehicles for publishing
 taxonomic decisions.
 > Period.
 > Then, as taxonomists adhere to a greater and lesser
 degree to that standard,
 > it would be possible to perhaps expand the rules and
 accept additional
 > options - but not BEFORE the rules have been made and
 implemented. As it
 > is, the ICZN responds to a need (as Scott stated,
 something was being forced
 > on the Commission), and then something else happens in
 the industry, and
 > the Commission once again needs to respond. When will
 it stop? That is not
 > a scientific approach - in science we figure out how
 things work and act
 > within those parameters. The Commission should develop
 the set of best
 > practices and enforce it. It should not be in a
 position to play catch-up with
 > an ever-changing industry. Indeed, nobody CAN predict
 how the industry will
 > develop, which is why WE need to tell the industry what
 is possible and what
 > isn't.
 > I also appreciate it that the commission may not like
 to take on an enforcer
 > role, but it has that role in principle anyway. It just
 needs to be more
 > emphatic in the way nomenclature is administered.
 > Hinrich
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >     On Sunday, January 8, 2017 2:17
 PM, Scott Thomson
 > <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 > 
 > 
 >  Hinrich and others,
 > 
 > To be fair I think that opening up the option of online
 publication was
 > effectively forced onto the ICZN and the rules they
 made were debated for
 > some time and based on the models available at the
 time. The online
 > publishing industry has since created entirely
 unpredictable models that the
 > original discussions did not predict. I do not think
 anyone could have
 > predicted the nature of what has become online
 publishing. It may, in hind
 > sight, have been better to permit that industry to
 stabilize for another
 > decade before permitting it to be a viable option for
 nomenclatural works.
 > Maybe it would have been better to resist it
 altogether. However there was a
 > lot of pressure to establish a set of rules of
 availability for online only
 > publications. I find some of these journals outright
 devious in their attempts
 > to validate their journals. Which do not meet the
 code.
 > 
 > Cheers Scott
 > _______________________________________________
 > 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
 > 
 > 
 > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30
 Years, 1987-2017.

 _______________________________________________
 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

 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years,
 1987-2017.