[PhyloCode] PhyloCode and Companion Volume Progress Report

de Queiroz, Kevin deQueirozK at si.edu
Wed Sep 7 19:44:34 EDT 2011


Actually, that's just the first paragraph.  It wasn't intended to be a summary (though I suppose that it could pass for one).  Please read the rest of the report, which is only 3 additional paragraphs and copied in full below for your convenience:

The Companion Volume will serve both as a starting point for phylogenetic nomenclature as governed
by the PhyloCode and as a set of examples for others who would like to adopt the approach. It is a large
and complex project, with scores of contributors and hundreds of contributions. The volume is
progressing more slowly than people (particularly the authors and editors) had hoped; nevertheless,
significant progress has been made.

As of September 2011, 228 contributions have been received, each dealing with a particular name/clade
combination. Of those 228 contributions, 169 (74%) have been reviewed (= at least two reviews have
been received for all of these contributions), and 10 (04%) have been accepted (= approved by all three
editors). Note that the second category (reviewed) is highly heterogeneous and includes everything from
contributions for which we have received reviews but done no further processing to those that, in
addition to having been reviewed, have been returned to the authors, revised, resubmitted, and
approved by one or two of the editors. To provide a bit more information, roughly 80 (47%) of the 169
contributions that have been reviewed have been approved by at least one of the editors, and roughly 60
(36%) have been approved by two of the three editors (= require approval by only one additional editor
before they are considered accepted).

On a related note, several people have reported that they have heard others say that the Companion
Volume and/or the PhyloCode is/are dead. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on the part of our
detractors; in any case, nothing could be further from the truth. The PhyloCode itself has been accepted
for publication. The only reason that it is not already published is that we have deliberately delayed
publication until the Companion Volume is completed. As noted above, considerable progress has been
made on the Companion Volume, though more work remains. Perhaps the doubters have formed their
opinions based on a perception of inactivity, given that the ISPN has not met for several years and
neither the PhyloCode nor the Companion Volume has been published. If so, that perception would be
erroneous. Despite the lack of publicly visible activity, a tremendous amount of work has been going on
behind the scenes on the parts of authors, reviewers, and editors.

Nevertheless, the project is large and difficult to manage. Some authors seem to be hedging their bets by
waiting to see if the volume is really going to be completed before sending in their own contributions or
revisions. If everyone were to adopt this attitude, progress would quickly come to a halt. I have
presented information above that I hope will assure authors that progress is being made and that the
volume will be published. However, one of the most difficult tasks for the editors is having to remind
authors and reviewers, often repeatedly, to turn in their contributions, reviews, and revised manuscripts.
If authors want to help the project move forward, it would be a great help to the editors if you would
submit your revised manuscripts promptly, and to have patience if we don't turn things around as
quickly as you do. Thank you.

Kevin de Queiroz
Co-Editor, PhyloCode Companion Volume
6 September 2011


On 9/7/11 5:58 PM, "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey at gmail.com> wrote:

A progress report has been posted to the ISPN website:
http://phylonames.org/pdf/Companion_vol_progress.pdf

SUMMARY: The Companion Volume will serve both as a starting point for
phylogenetic nomenclature as governed by the PhyloCode and as a set of
examples for others who would like to adopt the approach. It is a
large and complex project, with scores of contributors and hundreds of
contributions. The volume is progressing more slowly than people
(particularly the authors and editors) had hoped; nevertheless,
significant progress has been made.

--
T. Michael Keesey
http://tmkeesey.net/
_______________________________________________
PhyloCode mailing list
PhyloCode at listserv.ohio.edu
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/phylocode




More information about the PhyloCode mailing list