[CPN] Publication-Related Issues

[Michel Laurin]

Dear Mike,

These are good issues for the CPN to discuss. Here are my thoughts on 
these (below).

On 14/11/11 01:59, Mike Keesey wrote:
> Over the course of this year, a couple of ISPN members have raised
> some issues with me, issues which they would like to be discussed by
> the Committee.
>
> 1) Daniel Madzia believes that, in addition to the Companion Volume
> and the Registration Database, the implementation of the Code should
> be accompanied by the inauguration of a journal (something like
> "Journal of Phylogenetic Nomenclature"). This journal would cover
> nomenclatural proposals, CPN decisions, and general articles on
> phylogenetic nomenclature. Daniel Madzia has written up a short
> document summarizing his arguments; I will email that separately.
That would be good, but frankly, the ISPN currently does not have the 
resources in time and money required to do this, in my opinion. 
Furthermore, a journal specifically dedicated to biological nomenclature 
has been launched recently. It is called Bionomina 
(http://www.mapress.com/bionomina/), and even though its Chief Editor, 
Alain Dubois, has been rather hostile to the PhyloCode, and the journal 
deals with all kinds of biological nomenclatures (even anatomical, not 
only about naming taxa), PN papers can be published there, and we have a 
few ISPN members (Benoit Dayrat and me) and others sympathetic towards 
PN (Yann Bertrand) on the commitee. So in my opinion, an ISPN-sponsored 
journal for PN is unnecessary. The flow of papers in that field is so 
low that I don't see how this could feed a journal. Besides, Bionomina 
should soon have ISI indexing because it is published by Magnolia press, 
it is published regularly, and Alain has done what is required for this, 
I think. A small, irregularly-published PN journal would probably not 
achieve ISI indexing and would be less appealing.
> 2) On the other side of things, Mike Taylor believes that *fewer*
> things should accompany the implementation of the Code. Specifically,
> he believes that waiting for the completion of the Companion Volume is
> unnecessary and in fact has been a hindrance. He would be in favor of
> subsequent publication of the Companion Volume, but thinks that the
> implementation of the Code is too overdue already to be put off until
> the Companion Volume is done.
The problem is that the Companion Volume (CV below, for short) is 
supposed to include the first established names under that code. If we 
drop this idea, what becomes of the CV? We can't just drop it because I 
believe that a contract has been signed with UC Press to publish it, and 
the Editors and authors have already put much work into it. But I do 
agree that this has dragged on far too long. The only problem is: what 
can be done about it? In the past, and pearhaps before you got involved 
in ISPN committees, I argued once in a while for plans to move ahead 
faster with, for instance, a smaller CV that could be published earlier 
(nobody else seemed to like the idea), or broadening the Editorial Board 
with Review Editors (which was done, although this does not seem to have 
helped, partly because most board members were barely consulted, if at 
all, as far as I know). The only thing that we could possibly do, I 
think, is adding one or two additional editors if the current ones don't 
suffice to do this job promptly (as indeed seems to be the case). Note 
that I submitted, many years ago (in 2006), a dozen contributions and 
that ONE is already accepted. I got referee's comments in october 2009 
and resubmitted revised drafts in December 2010. The eleven others are 
still in limbo although I returned the revised versions years ago. This 
book has broken all my records for delays, by much: 3 years to get 
reviews (18 months has been my career-long record) and at least 2 years 
to get a decision on a revised draft (previous record: about 6 months). 
A standard edited book should take about a year to publish; I just 
published an edited issue of the CR Palevol a year after the meeting 
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1631068311X00052&_cid=272279&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000228598&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5a6a54154c3a58c6fd53389332a3ec23), 
but at the current rate, I would be very surprised if the CV were 
published before 2015, and I may be overly optimistic. And the meeting 
at which we asked for the contributions for the CV was in 2004...

To sum up, I agree entirely with Mike Taylor that de very long delays in 
implementing the ICPN caused by the CV is doing much harm; I even heard 
that several people think that the PhyloCode is dead, presumably because 
they no longer see much ISPN activity. I am also interested in 
publishing some definitions and moving ahead, but I have to hold back 
till we launch the code. But what should be done about this? I can only 
suggest we add editors to speed up the process because a large number of 
drafts are being processed, but very slowly.
> 3) Several people (including Mike Taylor) have noted that the ICBN
> will, as of next year, accept digital-only publications. The ICZN is
> also looking into this. Several ISPN members are in favor of the
> PhyloCode also allowing digital-only publication. This would require
> changes to Articles 4 and 5.
>
I would be favorable to this. Electronic publications are now becoming 
the norm, with paper copies being deposited in a few libraries to meet 
some publication requirements (I think) by journals like the PLoS 
series, BMC, Palaeontologica Electronica, etc. I think that we should 
revise the code.

Best wishes,

Michel

-- 
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669