[Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks Brian -- but can you clarify what you mean by "made moves"?  We're
not talking about registration here -- we're talking about whether the Codes
allow for online-only publication (that is, the establishment of an
available/valid name via means that do not include a paper-based printed
document).  As far as I can tell, the IJSEM still exists as a paper-based
journal (at least as recently as Vol 56, Part 10 -- Oct. 2006 issue).  That
there is an online version makes it no different from any botanical or
zoological journal in which new names are published, that is concurrently
available in online form. Are bacteriological names no longer required to be
published in IJSEM? Will Part 11 of Vol 56 (and issues thereafter) not exist
in paper form?

The ICZN has also "made moves" to accept online-only publication in the
sense that two of the three actively discussed paradigms for ZooBank would
not necessarily require paper-based publication.  But I characterize as
fortunate the fact that "the Codes" have not yet changed in this regard
simply because many people (myself included) feel that the existing
protocols and real-world practice of electronic archiving are not yet
adequate (at least in commonly implemented form) to ensure persistence for
centuries or millenia (or at least until the demise of human civilization as
we know it).  As I have said in recent posts, I believe the potential is
there, and I believe that it's possible that we may achieve that potential
within a few years.

So, if a solution for long-term persistence has already been identified and
implemented whereby IJSEM will exist only in electronic form (without paper
copies), or if the Bacteriological Code has changed such that names can be
available for use in accordance with the Code by purely electronic means of
communication (not appearing in paper-based versions of IJSEM), then I stand
corrected and will henceforth refer specifically to the other two major
Codes specifically.  I would also, in this case, very-much like to know how
the bacteriological community has implemented steps to ensure that
electronic-only documents of such fundamental importance as the
establishment of new taxa will persist on the scale of centuries or more.
I'd be especially interested to learn if bacteriological names can be
legitimate under the Code if they exist only in the registry database,
without any description published in the IJSEM (one of the paradigms for
ZooBank).

But if bacterialogical names must still be published in IJSB/IJSEM, and that
journal still has a paper-based version, then I stand by my statement,
"Fortunately, the Codes have not yet changed to accommodate online-only
publication" as inclusive of the three major Codes of Nomenclature.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of B.J.Tindall
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:10 PM
> To: 'Taxacom'
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Demise of Phyloinformatics journal
> 
> Sorry, Rich, but as usual you don't mean "the Codes", but 
> only the Botanical Code and the Zoological Code. The 
> Bacteriological Code has already made moves to accept on-line 
> publication. Please do not generalise in such a fashion.
> Brian
> 
> At 20:17 26.11.06, Richard Pyle wrote:
> 
> >As I pointed out in my reply to Dick Jensen the other day on 
> Taxacom, I 
> >believe a strong case can be made that electronic information has the
> >*potential* for far greater persistence (not to mention access) than 
> >paper-based publication. The big question is: How can we 
> *realize* this 
> >potential?  I think most of us would agree that we have not yet 
> >realized it (though the main obstacles are not exemplified by the 
> >demise of the Phyloinformatics journal -- it's not an issue for 
> >publishers, it's an issue for consumers). Fortunately, the 
> Codes have 
> >not yet changed to accommodate online-only publication, either.
> >
> >But the real foolishness, in my opinion, would be to *fail* 
> to pursue 
> >electronic/internet means of publication and information 
> dissemination 
> >for taxonomy.  Indeed, I think it is our *responsibility* to do so.  
> >The problem is, only a tiny fraction of the community takes 
> the time to 
> >understand the real implications of the issue (on both sides), and 
> >fewer still actively participate in the conversation.  A big part of 
> >realizing the potential is broad community involvement and 
> >participation.  These conversations on Taxacom and other lists are a 
> >good start, but we're not even scratching the surface of the full 
> >community (which extends well beyond taxonomists to include 
> *all* consumers of taxonomic nomenclature).
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Taxacom mailing list
> >Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom