[CPN] Proposed changes to PhyloCode rules on publication

[James Doyle]

Hello Phil,

I'm fine with these changes, with the tiny exception that “supplemental material” would seem to me less uncouth than “supplement material” in 4.2, line 6.

Maybe as a result of reading too much dystopian science fiction, I feel a little uneasy about the rush to make all publication electronic rather than baryonic (of course “as well as” is unquestionably a good thing). Paper may be ephemeral in the long run, but can we be sure things on the Internet aren't even more so? Along similar lines, I like the recognition that PDF may not be eternal and the fact that the code therefore allows for the possibility of a successor format. Who knows, maybe the same is true of the World Wide Web.

Sean’s point about early access versions is an interesting one. It seems hard to rule them out as establishing date of first publication. But isn’t accepting them understood under “becomes available”? My main worry is that years from now the date at which early access versions appeared may be impossible to retrieve.

Contrary to Sean, I think it’s a good idea to err on the side of caution and not accept names proposed only in electronic supplements. I really worry that such supplements will be more ephemeral than the main articles, even though they often include material (like actual data) that will be more useful to readers 100 years from now than the outdated prose in the main text. I also suspect that the peer review of supplements is all too often negligible.

I don’t know enough about ISSN and ISBN numbers to comment on Michel’s questions on these. But I suppose we have to draw the line somewhere. Think of all those fly-by-night fake journals - or do they all have ISSN numbers too? Concerning altering electronic publications, altering the content of the definition is surely more serious than altering the pagination. I see that the draft PhyloCode says "it may be beneficial to cite (in the text) the page on which the protologue or subsequent use appears,” implying that it’s not required, which suggests that changes in pagination between early access and definitive versions shouldn’t invalidate anything.

Jim

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear CPN members,
> 
> I hope by now you have all had time to read the proposed changes in Article 4 and related changes in Articles 5 and 7.  Please send your comments to the listserv (cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>), not to me personally.  
> 
> Regards,
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear CPN members,
>> 
>> Having now updated the CPN listserv membership, I am sending material for your consideration.  As many of you are aware, the PhyloCode articles on what constitutes publication need to be revised to address electronic publication.  I think the CPN was in general agreement on this point several years ago, but the details remained to be worked out.  Over the past several months, Nico Cellinese and Dick Olmstead drafted a set of revisions to the current rules.  Kevin and I then reviewed them, leading to further discussion  among the four of us.  The result is attached (“proposed publication requirements”).  
>> 
>> Three other documents are also attached: “current publication requirements” (as they exist in PhyloCode version 5); “publication requirements with changes tracked”; and the full PhyloCode 5, in case some of you don’t have a copy on your computer.  As you will see from the document with the tracked changes, most are in Article 4, but a few related changes are proposed in Articles 5 and 7.
>> 
>> I want to be sure that this message was received by the four new members (Jim Doyle, Micah Dunthorn, Sean Graham, and Max Cardoso Langer) and the two continuing members whose email addresses I just updated on the listserv (Michel Laurin and Dick Olmstead).  Therefore, I’d appreciate it if the six of you would email me to confirm that you received this.
>> 
>> Let’s give everyone the rest of the week to read the proposed changes before we start discussing them.  Although the revised text is not long, everyone is busy and I realize some of you may not have time to focus on this right away.  I will be back in touch on Monday to ask for comments.
>> 
>> The address when emailing this listserv is cpn at listserv.ohio.edu <mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Phil
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Publication requirements with changes tracked.docx><proposed publication requirements.docx><PhyloCode 5 beta version.pdf><current publication requirements.docx>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPN mailing list
> CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
> http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20180214/9bf11d9d/attachment-0001.html>