[CPN] Recent items for discussion

Fri Nov 18 17:41:12 EST 2011

Okay, so, if I understand Kevin's second point, the first kind of delay is
caused because the editors could use some more help; the second kind might
be mitigated with more pressure on authors from the editors.  Both delays
suggest that additional editorial help is needed, no?

Also, I think it is important to consider the systematic community,
because these are the people who will either use PhyloCode or not.  If
not, then we have a small group of people talking to each other and no one
outside them caring very much.  To be useful and used, a system has to
have buy-in from its consumers.  So the news that many people think that
the PhyloCode is dead should be a wake-up call.  Whereas accomplishing a
complete classification of plants or animals may have taken decades in
another century, and the Jepson Manual revisions still took 30 years (and
well worth it; the existing manual was still in use, though), we are in a
different age now, and we have more people to share the load; also, we're
not exactly having a great following on Facebook and Twitter.

Could the PhyloCode be published without the full Companion Volume but
with a few examples of successful (and maybe unsuccessful) examples?  This
is the proposal that I suggest to the group.  -- kp

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

-- 
Kevin Padian
Department of Integrative Biology &
Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140
510-642-7434
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php