[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Systematic Entomology

Mon Jul 28 10:54:34 CDT 2014

The arrangement in the ICNafp is that a "version of record"
is effectively published even though the pagination is preliminary 
(and is replaced later). Obviously this means that the final pdf 
as published in the journal (and available on the site) is altered 
from the effectively published version or even completely 
replaced. The average user cannot check if these "really" are 
the same; he just sees that there is an electronic difference.

In zoology, Article 9.9 rules out "preliminary versions of works 
accessible electronically in advance of publication". To me this 
means that the publisher must pick a single date of publication.
He must either publish each paper as it becomes available or
publish a complete issue of his journal. The latter is by far the 
simplest. Apparently, Systematic Entomology chooses the
former and indeed has the EarlyView papers available from 
the site (see
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-3113/earlyview),
with dates of publication indicated; these dates are maintained
later (the July 2014 issue has online publication dates 
ranging from 10 Feb to 30 Jun). I don't see why this should 
not be Code-compliant, although it is something of a headache.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: John McNeill 
To: 'John Noyes' ; 'Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman' ; iczn-list at afriherp.org ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] Systematic Entomology

John & al

The matter of the addition of page numbers is indeed one that the ICN addressed. I should probably have emphasised Art. 30 Note 1 that reads:
Note　2.　　Content in external sources accessed via a hyperlink or URL (Uniform Resource Locator) embedded in text is not part of the publication; nor is associated information that does not form part of the text itself, such as page numbers (if preliminary or lacking) or watermarks. Content is that which stands alone as the version that the publisher considers final (see Art. 30.2). 
Cheers,  John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Rapporteur-général, Nomenclature Section, XVIII IBC, 2011
Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh;
Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum.
Mailing address: Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone: +44-131-248-2848; fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office: +44-162-088-0651
e-mail: J.McNeill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: iczn-list [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of John Noyes
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:22 PM
To: 'Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman'; iczn-list at afriherp.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] Systematic Entomology

It is the definition of “final version” that is the problem. Publishers regard the “version of record” as the final version. If the publishers alter the pagination from that which appears in the prepublication to that which actually appears in the ACTUAL final version can we consider the prepublication as not being the final version or “version of record”. In the particular case that I mentioned the electronic article has the following statement printed “[Version of Record, published online 12 June 2014]” which means that the publisher intends it to be the final version, but how can it be? – The final version will have different pagination and the volume number of the journal will be added. Semantics or not, it is very confusing!
John
John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 
From: Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman [mailto:viper007 at live.com.au] 
Sent: 28 July 2014 11:40
To: John Noyes; iczn-list at afriherp.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [iczn-list] Systematic Entomology
My view is that it is probably NOT published according to the code (based on what you have told me).
The final version I assume “will” be different to the one you are reading and possibly published as hard copy.  Even if one typo is corrected, or page numbers are added it makes the publication non compliant according to article 8, which demands numerous identical copies.
Take for example the recent pseudoscience of Messers Reynolds et al, who renamed Broghammerus Hoser, 2004 with their own coined name.
Their first online pre-publication came out in 2013.  A corrected one emerged a week or two later and then the final version (different again) was published in 2014.
Even Wuster gang members divorced themselves from this effort.
My advice (and I am sure many commissioners would be the same) is don’t circulate more than one version of a taxonomic paper either before or at time of publication, other than for REVIEW and clearly identified as this.
If it means delaying proper publication of a paper somewhat, then so be it.
Better to get it right the first time.
All the best

Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ
The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322
0412 777 211

From: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk
To: iczn-list at afriherp.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:37:35 +0000
Subject: [iczn-list] Systematic Entomology
Dear All,
I recently  was sent a prepublication (“EarlyView”) version of a taxonomic paper in which various nomenclatural acts are proposed:
Baur, H., et al. 2014 Morphometric analysis and taxonomic revision of Anisopteromalus Ruschka (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Pteromalidae) – an integrative approach. Systematic Entomology  DOI: 10.1111/syen.12081.
This electronic publication can be considered as valid according to Article 8 of the ICZN dealing with electronic publications. Or can it? On the face of it is complies with the Code in that it has been registered with ZooBank and it has a publication date of 12 June 2012.
My doubt is that according to Articles 9.9 and 21.8.3 preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication are not to be considered as published. It seems a sort of circular argument here. Can this EarlyView version can be considered published merely because it appears to comply with Article 8 or can it be considered as unpublished because it is an advance version of the final version (which will have volume and final pagination – both absent from this version).
If it cannot be considered as published then I foresee no problem. However, if it can be considered as published then it may be opening a can of worms and I am wondering if there is any decent way of solving the problem before it becomes general practice.
In my view such prepublications (if they are available) must be treated as completely separate publications because they do not have IDENTICAL volume and pagination to that of the final printed version or electronic version. This in turn will making databasing for nomenclatural purposes difficult because the pagination (at least) and lack of volume number means that the publication in which a name (and other nomenclatural acts) is made available originally has to be recorded as a DOI (not as a volume number) and the page number as it appears in the prepub and not the printed version. To say the least it is confusing because, in the future, I can see two versions of effectively the same paper being recorded as the primary source of a nomenclatural act whilst only the prepub will be the correct one. Publishers regard these prepubs as a temporary, earlier version of the final (printed) version of the paper and thus will al most certainly not make effort to make them permanent records in any way and so, in time, the primary source of a nomenclatural act will be lost.
My thought is this. Is it really necessary to publish a prepublication of a taxonomic paper? I think not - we taxonomists are not under the same pressure as medics or particle physicists to publish first. So why publish a prepub at all? From a taxonomic/nomenclatural point of view it is pointless and very frustrating, especially for those of us that are trying to maintain electronic taxonomic databases. Can we do something about it before it is too late? I suspect that if these code compliant prepubs are not abandoned now then many, many other journals are going to follow suit making life difficult for us all.
Of course, it is likely that all journals will be eventually produced in only electronic format but until that happens I think prepubs (that are ICZN compliant) for taxonomic/systematic papers should be abandoned.
What are the views of others?
John
John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Life Sciences
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about chalcidoids and more):
www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 
From: iczn-list [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman
Sent: 17 July 2014 06:37
To: iczn-list at afriherp.org; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [iczn-list] Time to renounce ... Malayopython ... taxonomic vandalism?
Dear all, nothing better epitomizes the taxonomic vandalism and misuse of the zoological code than the Wuster gang's over-writing of the 10 year old established name Broghammerus with their own coined name Malayopython.
In spite of their best and tireless efforts of carpet bombing and harassing of everyone to use their improper nomenclature, people are resisting them.
As Wuster and Schleip post here regularly and they can see  from the attached image (one of many) that their ill-conceived attack on the nomenclature code is not having the unanimous support they allege ... people still use the proper names, I ask them to formally and publicly renounce their group's name Malayopython in order to create stability for users of the taxonomy and nomenclature.
I note that the species involved, is a high conservation significance animal.
..... here's waiting!
All the best

Snakebustersâ - Australia's best reptilesâ
The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
Reptile partiesâ, events, courses
Phones: 9812 3322
0412 777 211

_______________________________________________ iczn-list mailing list iczn-list at afriherp.org http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
--
The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh is a charity registered in Scotland (No SC007983)

_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list

Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2014.0.4716 / Virusdatabase: 3986/7900 - datum van uitgifte: 07/22/14