[CPN] Electronic publication; companion volume

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

First, I have to admit that I only glanced at the link.  However, I see these two issues as related.  If we were to accept electronic-only publication of names and nomenclatural acts, then it would also make sense to use the date of electronic publication as the date of publication for names or acts that are published electronically before they are published on paper.  Conversely, if we were to accept the date of electronic publication as the date of publication for names or acts that are later published on paper, then it would make little sense not to recognize names or acts in electronic-only publications (given that the former are effectively electronic-only on their dates of electronic publication).

A couple of other thoughts on this issue:  1) I think it would still be preferable not to recognize manuscripts and uncorrected proofs as publications, given the possibility (even likelihood) of changes before the final version.  Ideally, journals would allow authors to decline "publication" of these early stages if they were concerned about being scooped, though I realize that the journals will do as they please.

2) Some historians of science (e.g., David Hull) have argued that the scientific community tends to care less about acts of intellectual piracy (scooping), which only hurt the person who is scooped, than about unethical practices that can affect many people, such as falsification of data, though I am not suggesting that we ought to ignore problems of the former sort.   [This just something that came to mind; I don't think we should make any decisions based on it.]

The people involved with the registration database will have to tell us about that, as I am not in the loop.  However, I thought that Mike Keesey's software was designed to apply names to trees, rather than serve as a registration database.  In any case, Mike is on the Registration Committee.

Kevin

On 1/9/11 10:39 AM, "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic at gmx.at> wrote:

>  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.

The discussion I linked to wasn't so much about electronic-only
publishing as about publication dates. Most journals still publish on
paper, but they publish their articles electronically several months
before print. Should really the date of the print version become the
date the nomenclatural act becomes valid, when everyone has read the
paper months before, and when the exact day of online publication is
usually much easier to determine than the exact day the print issue
becomes available?

Some journals now even publish accepted manuscripts/uncorrected proofs
online. That's a real headache, because it means the manuscript can
still change before print. However, if we simply declare nomenclatural
acts in such manuscripts invalid (as we currently do), we risk inviting
another Aëtogate: such nomenclatural acts are out there for everyone to
scoop and publish validly in a faster journal. Yes, such unscrupulous
individuals really exist, as documented here:
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/

Importantly, registration as currently envisaged doesn't help with this.
That's because Recommendation 8.1B is only a recommendation:
"Registration of a name whose spelling or definition is identical to one
that already exists in the database should generally be avoided (but see
Recs. 8B, 8C). However, such names are not treated by this code as
homonyms or synonyms until published." And besides, it wouldn't stop
people from picking a slightly different name or wording the definition
a bit differently (or both).

>  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.

Sounds good.

How far has the work on the registration database progressed? I think I
haven't had any news of it since the meeting in 2008, when it was far
from functional and half the audience said Mike Keesey's software would
work much better.
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn