[CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication

[James Doyle]

I vote yes.

Jim
James A. Doyle

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear CPN members,
> 
> It is time to return to the proposed revision of the PhyloCode articles on publication, which the CPN considered in February and early March.  The subcommittee that developed the proposal (Nico, Dick, Kevin and myself) held a Skype conference on Friday to discuss your comments.  We appreciate the time and thought that all of you devoted to this, and we carefully considered your suggestions, some of which are reflected in the attached revision.  The new Note 4.2.1 addresses issues about electronic publication that were raised by many of you.  
> 
> In the attached draft, the only changes tracked are the new ones resulting from your comments on the version I sent the CPN on Feb. 6.   
> 
> A few comments on the suggestions we did not adopt:
> 
> 
> Peer review:  Even though it was a departure from the rank-based codes, the CPN decided years ago that peer review should be a requirement of the PhyloCode.  The issue is one of quality control.  Although it is not always possible to determine easily if a publication was peer-reviewed, having the requirement reduces the likelihood of “taxonomic vandalism” (exploiting the lack of a peer-review requirement to publish names indiscriminately, to “scoop” rivals, or to sabotage the phylogenetic nomenclature system).  We don’t envision checking every name to be sure it was peer-reviewed; however, the requirement gives the CPN a basis to suppress works that are shown to be flagrant violations.
> 
> 
> Regarding Rec. 4.4B, it was suggested that we mention CLOCKSS.  CLOCKSS is a dark archive designed to be a failsafe in case of a disaster and, as such, is largely inaccessible to individuals.  By contrast, our goal is to encourage publication in outlets that are not only archived but also provide broad accessibility.  In addition, we deliberately avoided listing specific repositories, which may change over time.  On the other hand, there is nothing in the recommendation to discourage the use of CLOCKSS.
> 
> 
> Regarding Note 7.2.2, we retained the rule that material contained only in electronic supplements is not considered published as defined in this code.  Our major concerns about electronic supplements are that they are not as carefully reviewed as the main body of publications and that they may have less permanence.
> 
> I think we could vote soon on whether to adopt these revised rules, but let’s wait a few days to give everyone a chance for a final reading.  There is no need to respond to this email unless there is a point you want to bring up for further consideration.  I will get back in touch with you early next week and ask for a vote.
> 
> I am copying this message separately to Max because the listserv emails are not reaching him for some reason, even though he is listed on my administrative page as a subscriber.  Please remember to copy your messages to his addresses <mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br <mailto:mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br>, langer.mc at gmail.com <mailto:langer.mc at gmail.com>> when you send messages to the CPN listserv. 
> 
> Best regards,
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip D. Cantino
> Emeritus Professor
> Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
> Ohio University
> Athens, OH 45701-2979
> 
> Phone: (740) 593-1128
> Fax: (740) 593-1130
> email: cantino at ohio.edu <mailto:cantino at ohio.edu>
> 
> <revised 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/20180410/92eebbd2/attachment.html>