[CPN] Fwd: Proposed changes to PhyloCode rules on publication

[Cantino, Philip]

I am forwarding some comments from Max Langer, who for some reason is not receiving messages through the listserv.

Phil


Begin forwarded message:

From: Max Langer <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br<mailto:mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>>
Subject: Re: [CPN] Proposed changes to PhyloCode rules on publication
Date: March 1, 2018 at 9:24:31 AM EST
To: "Cantino, Philip" <cantino at ohio.edu<mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>>


  Hi Phil,

  Firstly deeply sorry for the delay, as I told you, it came as a complete memory lapse.

  I was not sure if I should send the below comments only to you (as I did in the end) or to cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>.
  In any case, if needed, feel free to forward to the rest of the committee.
  Please, also include me on the list; I am not sure how the discussion is being conducted, as I have only received your personal emails so far.

  Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in these decisions.

  As for the comments:

  I am not sure why the text gives so much emphasis on peer review (4.2; 4.2.1).
  It is obviously desirable for the sake of the quality if the work, but I believe code provisions should not concern about that.
  I understand that, if a name is proposed following the PhyloCode rules, and is ISSN/ISBN registered, it does not really matter if it was peer reviewed or not.
  Well, this was in the original text, not in the modifications, so the committee probably has already decided on that, I just wanted to mention my opinion.

  Particularly in 4.2.1 it is not clear how would someone state that a particular chapter in a book or article in a journal was itself peer-reviewed?
  Of course, 4.2.1 would be redundant if peer review was not a concern.

  In agreement with 4.3-4.5.

  In 4.6, shouldn’t pen-drives and alike be included as storage medias?

  This comment has something to do with those from Michel Laurin on 4.5 and Sean Graham on 5.1.
  Shouldn’t we include provisions similar to that of 5.4 (on separates) for those advanced online publications that are not even in the shape of the final paper (not only missing dates, issues, etc.).
  Frequently they are not proof-checked versions and will be corrected for final publication.

  On 7.2.2, I agree with Sean Graham that “electronic supplements” can be considered published if they are properly archived and permanent.
  In any case, in the text as it is (perhaps my English is not helping and I am missing something here), shouldn’t “may” (end of second line) be replaced by something like “should”.
  The idea isn’t that because these items are important they should not be only in the “electronic supplements”.


  I hope this is of some help.

  Again, sorry for the delay/confusion.

  Cheers,

  max


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20180302/fe4c1b44/attachment.html>