[CPN] Recent items for discussion

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

Two comments on Dick's post:

1) I agree that we will eventually need to set one or more hard deadlines, as we have already done for initial submissions.  However, we are not there yet.  When we get close to the point where all of the revised drafts that have been resubmitted are accepted, that will be the appropriate time to set a hard deadline for the submission of revised manuscripts.

2) I am not in favor of the suggestion to accept any treatments that have been revised and resubmitted but not finalized by the editors.  For one thing, this will lead to lower quality contributions, as even revised versions sometimes still need significant work to get them up to par with other contributions.  For another thing, this is not the stage that is causing the biggest delays.  Instead, the biggest delays on the editors side involve the processing of the initial reviews so that suggestions for revisions can be sent to the authors, and on the authors side, the biggest delays are with some authors taking a long time to resubmit their revised manuscripts.

Kevin

On 11/16/11 6:00 PM, "Richard Olmstead" <olmstead at u.washington.edu> wrote:

Thanks, Dave, and others who have commented.

The only element of the discussion where I might have something to add pertains to the disposition of the Companion Volume.  I agree with Michel and Kevin and others that we need to publish both the Code and the CV together, because we have an obligation to do so, AND because it is the right thing to do vis a vis the Code and our ultimate goals.  I don't think we should second guess our previous decisions in this matter just because we are becoming frustrated with the slow pace of editing - many of us are complicit with that.

That said, I think we DO need to do something to make this happen sooner than 2015 or 2056 or whenever.  Michel's suggestion of adding another editor for vert paleo to help Jacques might work. Another suggestion might simply be to set a hard deadline for final drafts to send to the publisher and whatever treatments are not ready to go will not be published in the CV.  That may seem a harsh suggestion, but it is one that offers a finite solution.  It doesn't mean that the other treatments cannot be published; we hope that there will be a groundswell of publication sing the Code after it is published, and maybe the late CV treatments will be the ones to start the ball rolling.  If we pursue something like the above, I would suggest that any treatments that have been reviewed and revised, but have not been finalized by the Editor, should be accepted in the revised form returned by the author.

Dick



At 2:43 PM -0800 11/16/11, David Tank wrote:
Dear CPN members,

In an attempt to move forward with an organized discussion of the several issues that have been brought up, I would like to try to sum up the recent flurry and request that all members of the CPN respond in some fashion to the CPN listserve with their take on the issue(s) for which they have an opinion.  In general, when discussing issues that have been brought to the CPN as a formal proposal to amend the draft code, once there has been a gap of a few days in the discussion of a particular issue, I will call for a vote, and when doing so, I will also give CPN members an opportunity to speak up if they feel a vote is premature and more discussion is needed.  In the case of the three issues below, I don't think that any of these would require a vote, unless proposals are submitted to the CPN.

First, based on our vote last week, the Cellinese et al proposal will be posted on the ISPN website along with a call for feedback (before the end of December) for the CPN to consider in our discussion of this proposal.  Any feedback received will be distributed to the CPN to aid in the discussion of the proposal that will proceed in early 2012.

Second, below I have enumerated what I believe are the main issues that have been raised and need a broader discussion by the CPN (several CPN members have already responded to these issues in the "Publication-Related Issues" thread):

1) A meeting of the CPN sometime during the first six months of 2012.  At this point I would like to get feedback from others concerning both the necessity (as opposed to email discussions) and feasibility (likelihood of attendance sans financial support) of a CPN meeting outside of a formal meeting of the society.

2) The Companion Volume issue.  Two potential solutions have been presented, 1) remove the Companion Volume as a requirement for implementing the code, which would require a proposal to change Item 6 in the Preamble and Art. 7.1 of the code, or 2) push for the addition of editors to speed up the process.  As Michel Laurin pointed out, solution 2 is an issue that is more appropriately discussed by the Council, because it does not involve changes to the draft code (as is Mike Taylor's suggestion to reduce the scope of the Companion Volume).  I'm sure that the rest of the CPN has an opinion regarding solution 1, so this is what should be discussed.

3) Electronic publication.  As mentioned, this would require changes to Articles 4 and 5 of the code.  To my knowledge, a proposal to change these has not yet been brought to the CPN, but it seems likely that one will (Kevin indicated that Nico may be preparing a proposal on this as well). This will require discussion at that time.

If anyone feels that I have missed something, please let me know.

Best,
Dave

Chair, CPN
_________________________________
David C. Tank
Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium
University of Idaho
208.885.7033
dtank at uidaho.edu
http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/


_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn