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

[Richard Pyle]

Agreed, and more reason why actions and requirements associated with nomenclatural availability should be consolidated in one place.  Preferably one where the date of availability can be confidently and objectively recorded with precision (e.g., to the nearest millisecond).

 

Aloha,

Rich

 

From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:01 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; dominique.zimmermann at nhm-wien.ac.at; Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two

 

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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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.