[Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal

Sat Nov 25 11:59:35 CST 2006

I had replied to Dick Jensen's email yesterday, but failed to include the
Taxacom address.  I re-sent my post to the list just now, but see that Dick
replied to me only. Based on the "et al.", I'm assuming Dick also intended
his note to go to the list, appended below.

Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjensen at saintmarys.edu [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:26 AM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Subject: Re: RE: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
> 
> Rich, et al.,
> 
> I thought my use of potential was obvious; apparently not.  
> All materials, but let's stick to paper and electronic for 
> this discussion, have the potential to be lost, forgotten, 
> accidentally or deliberatly destroyed.  For electronic files, 
> the potential for that to happen is greater than for paper 
> copy.  Why?  If there are a thousand paper copies of a 
> journal distributed to individuals and libraries around the 
> world, then it is extremely unlikely that anything could 
> cause complete loss of all copies simultaneously.  However, 
> depending on the form in which electronic copies are stored, 
> a massive electronic "storm" could destroy all copies in any 
> single location and, if deliberatley carried out (as in a 
> war), could eliminate all copies in a variety of locations.  
> 
> Yes, you could immediatly send several thousand copies of 
> your reprint to those of us on various list serves.  How many 
> of us would save the copy we received?  And, how many of us 
> are at institutions that will permanently archive our 
> electronic holdings? How many copies would be saved in a 
> semi-permanent electronic format?  Is there a truly permanent 
> electronic format?  I have hundreds of 5.25 inch and 3.5 inch 
> floppies with data.  I can still read all of these, but 
> that's only because I have deliberately saved the appropriate 
> drives and computers.  This tecnology is on the way out and 
> once these drives are no longer available, these electronic 
> "archives" become useless.
> 
> Experience tells me that most of us do not keep moving old 
> lectronic files to new systems.  This is where potential 
> comes into play - if proper archiving, backing up, and 
> upgrading don't occur, then it matters not how many 
> electronic copies are buried in the dust bins of my or my 
> library's collections.
> 
> I suspect that eventually memory will become so cheap and 
> plentiful that everything in the Library of Congress will be 
> able to be stored on a single memory device; but that's not 
> possible now (as far as I know).  
> 
> And, of course, archivers like JSTOR are making paper 
> obsolete.  But are we yet at a point where we want to put all 
> of our eggs in a single basket?  I don't think so.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dick J
> 
> Richard Jensen
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Date: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:01 pm
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
> 
> > 
> > Two great threads right now, about both of which I wish to comment 
> > moreextensively than I now have time for. Perhaps later in the 
> > weekend.  But just a quick comment below.
> > 
> > Dick Jensen wrote:
> > 
> > > As I see it, when a publishing company expires, its 
> product does not 
> > > automatically disappear.  I assume many subscribers (especially 
> > > libraries) have hardcopy on file.  However, when an on-line 
> > > publisher expires, there is the *potential* for everyting to 
> > > disappear with it.  Electronic-only publication is more likely to 
> > > result in loss of original sources than is hardcopy publication.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how you are defining the word "potential" here; but in 
> > terms of how publication dissemination actually works, I 
> disagree with 
> > your conclusion above.  Case in point: the demise of the 
> > Phyloinformatics.orgwebsite/publisher by no means caused the all 
> > digital copies of the PDF file of my Taxonomer article that was 
> > published therein to "automatically disapper" any more than 
> would be 
> > the case for a paper-based article.
> > Besides the (at least) three copies that have already been 
> pointed out 
> > as existing on the web.archive.org website, I know of at least two 
> > other copies freely available online:
> > 
> > http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/natscidb/pdf/1080673318.pdf
> > http://taxondata.org/referencias/pdf/857.pdf
> > 
> > Five may not seem like a lot, but these are only the copies 
> that I can 
> > acquire for free in less than a minute of my time (that I happen to 
> > know about).  It's infinitely larger than the number of 
> copes of *any* 
> > paper-based publication that I can acquire a paper copy of 
> as quickly 
> > and easily (and inexpensively).
> > 
> > I have no idea how many copies of that file exist on various hard 
> > drivesaround the world, but I would like to think that 
> there are many 
> > more than five. Perhaps they are not quite as easily 
> accessible as the 
> > five onlinecopies, but most of them are probably much 
> easier to gain 
> > access to than the average paper-based publication (e.g., 
> an email to 
> > Taxacom or one of the TDWG lists would likely yield multiple 
> > affirmative responses). The same is likely true of almost 
> every other 
> > article published originally in electronicform.
> > 
> > Moreover, on the theme of "potential" -- the potential to make and 
> > distribute multiple electronic copies of a PDF file 
> *vastly* exceeds 
> > that of a paper-based article.  If I had merely attached a 
> PDF copy of 
> > the aforementioned phyloinformatics artcle to this message (modesty 
> > forbids), I would have almost instantly created hundreds of copies 
> > distributed all over the planet (first in email server 
> inboxes, then 
> > on local hard drives of Taxacom subscribers).  Imagine how 
> much more 
> > expensive and time consuming it would have been to 
> distribute a paper 
> > copy of the same article to everysingle Taxacom subscriber....
> > 
> > The point is, if we are to invoke "potential", then I believe it's 
> > mucheasier to make the case that electronic publications 
> have a VASTLY 
> > greater potential for longevity (permanency) of access than 
> > paper-based pubications.
> > Unfortunately, we're not even close to realizing that 
> potential yet.  
> > I predict that within the next couple of decades, that 
> potential will 
> > be much better realized.
> > 
> > Having spent non-trivial amounts of time thinking about 
> this issues, 
> > I've found MANY reasons why electronic-based publication 
> can increase 
> > the potential of both distribution and permanency over paper-based 
> > publications.But I have yet to identify more than one drawback to 
> > electronic publication that cannot be very easily and 
> cheaply solved 
> > in the near-term future.  That one drawback is the need for a 
> > software-equipped electronic device to translate a series of binary 
> > bits into something that can be interpreted by human eyes.  
> However, I 
> > think it's safe to say that there are more suchelectronic 
> devices with 
> > appropriate software in existence today (as well as the forseeable 
> > future) than there are copies of almost any paper-based publication.
> > 
> > More on the two threads to follow later...
> > 
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> > 
> > Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> > Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences  and Associate 
> Zoologist in 
> > Ichthyology Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
> > 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> > Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> > email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> > http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 