[Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two

Fri Dec 20 16:00:35 CST 2019

Hello Stephen,
Thank you for your reply. Please note that "ZooBank itself will record the
date of registration as 04.01.2020" *but we will not be able to see it*. We
will only see the content of the "Date Published" field, which is manually
entered and does not reflect the date in which the record was created.
Unless that ZooBank is further developed, we cannot see who created a
record and on which date. I will explain below how ZooBank can be hacked.
Meanwhile, imagine that two papers on the same genus come out in very close
dates. The first paper, the one from my previous example, would be believed
to be validly published on 01.01.2020, even if it was registered in ZooBank
on 04.01.2020 and the pdf edited and republished on that date. A second
paper, dealing with the same genus and new species comes out on 03.01.2020,
being validly registered in ZooBank in advance (prospective registration).
What will the community see? The community will see the pdf of paper 1
displaying the date of 01.01.2020 (because it was not edited, just like in
Meierotto et al. 2019) and they will see the same information in ZooBank,
01.01.2020, because the person that wrote the entry in 04.01.2020 would
have chosen 01.01.2020 manually in ZooBank. The community will also see the
pdf of paper 2 displaying the date of 03.01.2020 and they will see the same
information in ZooBank, 03.01.2020. Someone having to decide on the
priority of the genus and/or the species, will deem the republished, later
registered paper 1 as the one holding priority for three days over paper 2,
when in fact it is paper 2 the one that has priority over paper 1 for one
day. The result: The rightful author of paper 2 will be deprived of
priority over his names and the true senior names will be put in synonymy
with the junior names.
How to hack ZooBank? It is possible to hack priority in ZooBank simply by
selecting "This work has already been published" and manually entering a
past date (retrospective registration). The resulting entry will look
exactly like any other entry to the external users. The resulting LSID of a
retrospective entry can then be copied and pasted into the reissued pdf,
while the original pdf is wiped off. There is no difference between a
prospective entry and a retrospective entry being shown by ZooBank. With
current technology, it is totally possible to generate an LSID for a past
date in ZooBank, display it as a past date and display that LSID and a past
date on a newer pdf. A group of people could concertedly hack priority and
make it look as it never happened. So no, your statement "The key point
with a case like that described above is that ZooBank itself will record
the date of registration as 04.01.2020" is incorrect. Internally, maybe,
externally, we will see any date that was manually entered.

Also, thank you for pointing out your concern with the "backdating problem"
that you mentioned. I think that "backdating problem" is what I described
and what you described is "delayed publication", something that we already
have dealt with over centuries of printed publication. Maybe we need an
analysis on delayed publication in the digital context.

Cheers,
Charlie

El vie., 20 dic. 2019 a las 23:00, Stephen Thorpe (<
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>) escribió:

> Carlos wrote: 'What happens, for example, in the following case? An
> original online version is published on 01.01.2020 without being registered
> in ZooBank. On 04.01.2020, the publisher realizes the mistake, registers
> the publication in ZooBank, directly edits version 1, adds the ZooBank
> LSID, and reissues the paper but keeps the same date of 01.01.2020. Our
> community is nearly defenseless against something like this.'
>
> I don't see much point in me entering into a specific thread relevant to
> much wider concerns about the current state of zoological nomenclature (it
> is just one issue amongst thousands), however I will answer the above
> question. The stated date on a publication does not have to be correct.
> There needs to be a date specified, but it is not required to be correct.
> The key point with a case like that described above is that ZooBank itself
> will record the date of registration as 04.01.2020 and so, all other things
> being equal, that will be the actual date of (electronic) publication, even
> if  the date on the publication is 01.01.2020.
>
> However, a slightly more disturbing possibility is that something like
> this might happen: the date on the publication is 01.01.2020, the date of
> ZooBank registration is 04.01.2020 (and the stated date of publication on
> ZooBank is 01.01.2020 or 04.01.2020), but the publication didn't actually
> go online until 10.01.2020 and there is nothing on the publisher website to
> indicate the date that it actually went online. I'm not sure how the actual
> publication date could be determined down the track?? Anyone? We can call
> this a "backdating problem".
>
> Stephen
>
> On Friday, 20 December 2019, 07:40:19 pm UTC, Carlos Alberto Martínez
> Muñoz via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Rich,
> Sorry if my writing confused you, English is not my mother tongue. Please,
> note that my example is not based on versions "of an unpublished work prior
> to the first edition of the work that fulfills the requirement for
> publication under the Code". My example is based on two formally published
> online versions, which in the opinion of the publishers and authors
> fulfilled the requirements of the Code until Stephen Thorpe highlighted
> that it was not so. The first pdf version that I am mentioning is an
> official one and it was online for a few days until it was reissued.
> It is clear to me that ZooBank LSIDs are not required for different
> unpublished versions but just when a final working version becomes a
> publishable work and is indeed published. What I am discussing is the fact
> that there were two published and supposedly Code-compliant versions that
> were not labeled as such, one being eliminated and disappearing leaving no
> other trace than the few pdfs that were quickly downloaded after
> publication by DEZ, and that those two published versions did need ZooBank
> LSIDs.
> Again, the online version not being clearly labeled as v2 is also contrary
> to *Recommendation 8D. Content immutable*. I will copy that here, since I
> didn't do it in my last email:
> Recommendation 8D. Content immutable. The content of a work is immutable
> once it is published. Corrections should be made through notices of errata
> or other separate publications. Second or other additional printings of a
> work should be clearly labeled as such, with date of publication stated in
> the work, even if no changes have been introduced.
> I have compared the two versions. The second version contains fixes to
> ZooBank links that were broken, figures 10 and 19 changed slightly,
> pagination on page headers was fixed from 119-146 (incorrect) to 119-145
> (correct). The tree on page 145 also changed slightly.
> In my opinion, that accounts for a different version, a scientific paper
> that was reissued instead of publishing a corrigenda to broken links, page
> headers, etc. It should have had another DOI and another ZooBank number.
> This is a very serious issue. We have walked a long way trying to make
> online publishing Code-compliant and more than that, as trustable as
> immutable paper print. But if post-publication, post-compliance changes are
> made and original versions vanish, that is a threat to Code compliance and
> trustability of the electronic publishing system as a whole.
> What happens, for example, in the following case? An original online
> version is published on 01.01.2020 without being registered in ZooBank. On
> 04.01.2020, the publisher realizes the mistake, registers the publication
> in ZooBank, directly edits version 1, adds the ZooBank LSID, and reissues
> the paper but keeps the same date of 01.01.2020. Our community is nearly
> defenseless against something like this. In my previous email and above I
> showed that original published versions can be wiped off. If we add that it
> is not possible to see who recorded what on which date in ZooBank (users
> and entry dates are not public), we have virtually no means to
> independently check for original compliance. In my example, everyone would
> believe that the version actually dates from 01.01.2020 and that the
> ZooBank registration was made anytime before that date.
> This also brings back the old question on how much change is acceptable
> change. I thought that we settled for zero change years ago. Maybe I'm
> wrong. If so, someone please explain to me and to the community how much
> change can occur before a version 1 is considered a version 2. One dot? One
> comma? One repaired link? One adjective? One full sentence? A forgotten
> ZooBank LSID?
> Anyway, as Stephen wrote long ago and as I confirmed, the pdf version(s) of
> that paper is not Code-compliant. I would very much like to know if there
> are printed versions already out, how many and in which public library I
> could access one. I have copied here Dominique Zimmermann, DEZ
> Editor-in-Chief. Maybe she could let us know if the names are already
> available from the printed edition or if still there are no printed copies
> out. We shouldn't be having discussions over unpublished names.
>
> A separate problem. I would also like to mention that the online version of
> DEZ seems to be issued under an incorrectly registered ISSN (
> https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1860-1324). It gives the key title
> "Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin. Deutsche
> entomologische Zeitschrift". However, the last time I looked, the successor
> of the "Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin" was not the
> DEZ but Zoosystematics and Evolution, now also edited by Pensoft. The ISSN
> of Zoosystematics and Evolution (
> https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1860-0743) does not show that
> journal
> as the successor of the "Mitteilungen". I hope that someone will correct
> those records soon. Otherwise they may end up polluting our bibliographical
> databases.
>
> Cheers,
> Charlie
>
> --
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Publons profile
> <https://publons.com/author/1324309/carlos-alberto-martinez-munoz#profile>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:48:29 -1000
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> To: 'Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz' <biotemail at gmail.com>
> Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two
> Message-ID: <00c301d5b755$4f54d340$edfe79c0$@bishopmuseum.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;      charset="utf-8"
>
> Art. 8.5.3.3. The following are examples of *inadmissible errors*: (...) A
> publisher discovers errors in a work and *reissues it* to correct those
> errors, *but* instead of registering the new edition, *uses the original
> ZooBank number*; the revised edition is not available because it was not
> separately registered.
>
> This is a bit confusing and misleading. There may be dozens (hundreds?) of
> "editions" of an unpublished work prior to the first edition of the work
> that
> fulfills the requirement for publication under the Code. This is true for
> paper
> publications as well (draft manuscripts, reviewer copies, galley proofs,
> etc.).
> The existence of these prior unpublished (in the sense of the Code) works
> does
> not in any way impact the availability of a work that is eventually
> published in
> accordance with the Code. From the perspective of the Code, these previous
> unpublished editions do not exist, and therefore have no impact whatsoever
> on
> the existence of a later published work.
>
> For example, a ZooBank LSID is created for a work intended to be published
> electronically. That LSID appears within the galley proofs, which itself is
> not
> published in the sense of the Code. The work is later issued in a way that
> is
> Code compliant. The existence of the LSID within the galley proofs (un
> unpublished work) does not therefore require that the published edition
> must be
> registered anew.
>
> This is a simple example of a very complex problem that will be fixed in
> the 5th
> Edition; but the point is that the last example under Art. 8.5.3.3 (quoted
> above) can be very misleading. In a situation such as the one that has been
> described in this thread, we DO NOT WANT people to create a new
> registration
> record in ZooBank. That would only apply for a truly different work (like a
> corrigendum, which itself must contain all the elements necessary for
> conferring
> nomenclatural availability), but which itself is a completely different
> work
> from a previously "published" (but technically non-Code-compliant) work.
>
> But the fact that these examples exist underscores that the separation of
> requirements in two separate places (i.e., both within the work itself and
> within the ZooBank registration record) leads to myriad complexities, which
> are
> unintended consequences of the Amendment to the Code to allow for
> electronic
> publication. I'll stay off my usual soapbox on this point (for now).
>
> Aloha, Rich
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>

-- 
Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
FI-20014 University of Turku
Finland
ResearchGate profile
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
Publons profile
<https://publons.com/author/1324309/carlos-alberto-martinez-munoz#profile>
Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>