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

[Stephen Thorpe]

 "but we will not be able to see it."Yes you can see it! Just hover your cursor arrow over the orange LSID box on any ZooBank record. It tells you who registered the record and when.
Stephen
    On Friday, 20 December 2019, 10:00:51 pm UTC, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 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 MuñozZoological Museum, Biodiversity UnitFI-20014 University of TurkuFinlandResearchGate profile
Publons profile
Myriapod Morphology and Evolution