[Taxacom] EJT, European journal for taxonomy

[Dr Brian Taylor]

Thank you for your response Doug.

Well, as my grandmother might have said - "the proof of the pudding is in
the eating".  I can criticize you because there are no visible facts, i.e.
"No evidence, M'Lud".

I wrote some time back re deposition of, say, a pdf with Zoobank to
determine publication date. I got no reply. Your comments on the Code and
"publication" seem to suggest only "publishers" (self-appointed) can issue
acceptable new descriptions. In the ant literature there are examples of new
descriptions by W L Brown in "Pilot Register of Zoology (Cornell
University), cards nos. 29 and 30. 1974". Those seem to breach the Code
provision but I have never found any suggestion of their being invalid. I
doubt if there were "numerous" copies and, in any case, how many small
journals distribute numerous copies?

Brian Taylor

http://antbase.org/ants/africa/


On 29/06/2011 18:50, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

>> Quoting from the website (third paragraph):
>> 
>>   "Printed versions of EJT papers will be distributed to some major
>>    natural history museums and institutions to comply with the rules
>>    of the different nomenclatural codes."
> 
> It is remarkable how many people seem to think that the Zoological
> Code contains a requirement that paper copies be deposited in a
> library.
> 
> The actual quote of the relevant part of the ICZN is Art. 8.1.3, which says:
> 
> "it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously
> obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and
> durable copies."
> 
> The provisions regarding dissemination and deposition, etc., are all
> listed as Recommendations (Recs. 8A-8E, in particular).
> Recommendations are simply instructions for good practice, and are
> not *required* for a work to be Code-compliant.
> 
> If the printed versions of the EJT papers do not fit the explicit
> criteria above ("simultaneously obtainable" and "method that assures
> identical and durable copies"), then they are not published, and if
> they do fit the criteria, then they ARE published - regardless of how
> many libraries have received copies.
> 
> The Code explicitly prohibits print-on-demand, and the boundary
> between (into which the EJT may fall) is a gray area. The relevant
> Article is 9.7, which prohibits "copies obtained on demand of an
> unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited in a library
> or other archive"
> 
> You will note from the wording of this Article that just because
> something is printed, and in a library, does NOT mean it is published
> as far as the Code is concerned; it MUST satisfy Article 8, which
> makes requirements regarding *HOW* it was printed. The reason this is
> a gray area should be obvious: a person printing out a dozen copies
> on their home laser printer can argue that, technically, all 12
> copies were printed from the same computer file, and therefore
> identical, and that they were all simultaneously obtainable. If this
> was literally how the copies were produced, it probably would be
> Code-compliant, but the problem is that there is no objective method
> of determining whether this is in fact how it *was* done. That person
> COULD have printed one copy one day, two copies the next day, another
> copy three days later (with a typo fixed), two more copies the
> following day, and so forth, and thus NOT been Code-compliant. We
> would have only their personal word that they were all printed at one
> time, and all identical. I would accordingly argue that the use of a
> computer printer is accordingly not a method that *assures* anything
> (as opposed to, say, a printing press). If such a case were ever put
> forth to the Commission, it could possibly be contentious.
> 
> Certainly, at the time these Articles were first incorporated into
> the Code, private individuals did not have much, if any, capacity to
> self-publish Code-compliant works, but now they do (and conversely,
> genuine publishers have been migrating away from the printing press).
> Much of the debate and argument (both historically and today) centers
> around the archival nature of a given method of production - and that
> leaves lots of room for argument, as you can imagine.
> 
> Brian Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Yep!  And how long have we been waiting for the "voluntary" ICZN - who
>> appointed/elected the Commissioners - to fall off the fence?
> 
> Speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, we fell off the fence years ago,
> and have been working for quite some time now on drafting a policy to
> incorporate electronic publication into the Code. As with all such
> matters of red tape, drafting new policies takes time (especially
> when dealing with arguments such as the one above) - so please don't
> think that just because we have not *yet* issued a revision to the
> Code, that we have no intention of *ever* doing so. If you're going
> to criticize us, please be certain of the facts first.
> 
> Sincerely,