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

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Carlos,

 

Your English is excellent, and I wasn’t confused.  I was not suggesting that you misinterpreted the example from Art. 8.5.3.3, but I know that others have, so I wanted to clarify this point.

 

The first edition of a work to be published in compliance with the Code, regardless of whether it is electronic or paper, and regardless of whether it continues to be obtainable after numerous copies were simultaneously obtainable, establishes any nomenclatural act(s) contained therein.  If a subsequent edition of the work is published in compliance with the Code, then it can either be treated as a later edition of the “same” work (in which case new names established therein would not be regarded as homonyms), or it can be regarded as a distinct work (in which case one could argue that identical names represent homonyms).  If both works share the same ZooBank LSID, then it is reasonable to interpret it as the former (and, hence, no homonyms).  But the date of availability for any new names or other nomenclatural acts (for purposes of nomenclatural priority) are taken as the date when an edition of the work first fulfilled the requirements of publication in the sense of the Code.

 

If you are correct that in the specific example you are talking about the electronic edition is not compliant Code, then it effectively doesn’t exist from the perspective of the Code.  The names only become available when numerous identical copies of a Code-compliant edition (paper or electronic) become simultaneously obtainable.

 

Aloha,

Rich

 

 

From: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:31 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; dominique.zimmermann at nhm-wien.ac.at
Subject: Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two

 

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 Please, note that my example is not based on versions "of an unpublished work prior to the first edition of the work that fulfills the requirement for publication under the Code".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 <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> >
To: 'Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz' <biotemail at gmail.com <mailto:biotemail at gmail.com> >
Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> >
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two
Message-ID: <00c301d5b755$4f54d340$edfe79c0$@bishopmuseum.org <http://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