[CPN] Proposed changes to PhyloCode rules on publication

Mon Mar 5 11:07:41 EST 2018

Dear Michel and other CPN members,

We have received comments from all but one CPN member.  The subcommittee will consider all the comments received and respond to the CPN, but I’m not sure when that will occur.  In the meanwhile, if you or other CPN members want to send additional comments in response to the ones recently received, feel free.

Best regards,
Phil

On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Michel LAURIN <michel.laurin at mnhn.fr<mailto:michel.laurin at mnhn.fr>> wrote:

Dear CPN members,

I agree with George; we should consider these problems carefully.

Phil, did you intend us to discuss these further, or will you (the subcommittee working on this) simply rework the relevant articles and come back with a revision later? I know from your comment from March 2 that we are still awaiting on one or two Council members for their feedback, but do you need anything else from the rest of us?

Best wishes,

Michel
________________________________
De: "George Sangster" <g.sangster at planet.nl<mailto:g.sangster at planet.nl>>
À: "Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature" <cpn at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto:cpn at listserv.ohio.edu>>
Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Mars 2018 16:06:17
Objet: Re: [CPN] Proposed changes to PhyloCode rules on publication

Dear CPN members,

I have made a few comments on the proposed PhyloCode articles on what constitutes publication (see attached).

I see two problems:

Note 4.2.1. How do we deal with potential violations of the rule that papers must be peer reviewed? Must there be *evidence* that a journal (or paper) is peer-reviewed? In other words, is *lack of evidence* for peer-review sufficient reason to consider a name unavailable? How can we tell if a paper was not peer-reviewed? (no journal will state this in print)

Art. 4.5 and 5.1. "An electronic publication must not be altered after it is published" and the publication date is when it "first becomes available either in print or online".
These rules seem to accept online pre-publications (pdfs), which may be (i) an accepted (but unedited) manuscript, (ii) uncorrected proofs, or (iii) corrected proofs (version of record). Any of these could be regarded as 'the 'first published version' of the manuscript, depending on which versions are published. Some journals publish all these before the final paginated version appears online. Art. 4.5 in its present form would suggest that a published manuscript version could be the ‘correct’ one (because it’s published first), and that the version of record and final version are just ‘corrections’ or ‘revisions’. Clearly, this is not desirable.

I am attaching three papers on this subject, which I hope helps us make up our minds on this matter.

All the best,
George

Dr George Sangster
Department of Bioinformatics and Genetics,
Swedish Museum of Natural History,
P.O. Box 50007,
SE–104 05 Stockholm,
Sweden

Op 6-2-2018 om 21:09 schreef Cantino, Philip:

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

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

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

--
Michel Laurin
CR2P, UMR 7207
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
Bâtiment de Géologie
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php
E-mail: michel.laurin at mnhn.fr
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu<mailto: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/20180305/4d0319eb/attachment-0001.html>