[CPN] Electronic publication; companion volume

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

Hi David et al.,

I agree that we should reconsider the issue of electronic publishing for the PhyloCode (I have previously sent Phil several messages about this but we have not yet done anything about it).  Electronic-only journals are publishing papers that have nomenclatural "acts" in them, it seems just as bad to ignore those "acts" as to accept them with the worry that the source might disappear in the future.  Perhaps we could develop some sort of requirement for electronic archiving as an alternative to print publication/archiving, though I don't know much about the costs and limitations.

Progress is being made on the Companion Volume, though probably not as rapid as you might hope.  Summarizing what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done would take more time that it is worth.  I can tell you that I have solicited and received reviews for all of the contributions that I have received, though I have only had a chance to process about half of the reviews.  We hope to make a push to finish the review process this year.

Kevin


On 1/5/11 7:23 AM, "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic at gmx.at> wrote:

Hello...

I'd like there to be _some_ traffic on this mailing list before my term
runs out. It's not as if we had nothing to discuss. For instance, how about:

- Electronic publication. The current draft of the PhyloCode is even
stricter than the current (1999) edition of the ICZN in requiring ink on
paper. The advantages are clear; but so are the disadvantages. Here
http://chinleana.blogspot.com/2010/12/validity-of-electronically-published.html
is a good, but short discussion; the latter half (of the discussion, not
the opening post) is specifically about the PhyloCode.

- Has any progress been made on the Companion Volume? I haven't had any
news about it for... what, a year and a half?
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn