[Taxacom] botanical Code; no open access, but it doesn't matter

[Peter Stevens]

ONE step at a time. I am all in favour of open access, but that is separable from electronic publication.  The dialogue in the special commitee for electronic publication  started off wih the goal of open access, but there weRE immediate practitalities - like getting electronic publication in the first place, and they seemed (from my point of view) the first and most important step
p.




-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Donat Agosti
Sent: Wed 7/20/2011 8:06 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: 'Egloff-Bader Lucie und Willi'; Peter Suber
Subject: [Taxacom] botanical Code; no open access, but it doesn't matter
 
In the recent sessions of the Nomenclature Section at the International
Botanical Conference
(http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2011/00000060/00000001/art00
033),  Open Access to protologs have not even been discussed, because they
have been killed in the preceding mail ballot with 88% (Art. 30, Prop C) and
89% (Rec 30A Prop. C) no votes, and thus have not brought up during the
session.

 

They both dealt with access to protologs, not to the entire puplications,

 

Prop. C (149 - Niederle in Taxon 59: 986) Add a new Art. 30.5bis,

as follows:

"30.5bis. Publication on or after 1 January 2012 is not effective

unless the publication contains a statement saying that all protologues

contained in it may be reproduced, stored and disseminated by all

means without limitation and free of charge."

 

Prop. C (150 - Niederle in Taxon 59: 986) Add a n ew R ec.

30A.1bis, as follows:

"30A.1bis. If the copyright holder of a publication dated before

1 January 2012 refuses free reproduction, storage or dissemination

of protologues contained in it, the publication should be included in

opera utique oppressa."

 

The astonishing in this very clear result is that so many votes have been
against open acess that would facilitate so much the scientific live of
these taxonomists.

 

The positive side is, that this vote is irrelevant, since the protologs do
not fall under copyright because they are not work in a legal sense. They
are highly formal descriptions of taxa, with a very specific language, often
peer reviewed to conform to the botanical standards, are not creative work
but data, and thus can be reused freely. For a detailed explanation see
Agosti & Egloff 2008 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/2/53) 

 

Donat Agosti

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here