[Taxacom] the zoological code and online publications

[Vladimir Blagoderov]

No, Steven, you are wrong. Pensoft has done it properly always

Cheers,

Vlad


--
Dr Vladimir Blagoderov, FLS
Department of Life Sciences
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6629 (office)
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6895 (SBIL)
Fax: +44 (0) 207 942 5229

e-mail:
vlab at nhm.ac.uk
vblago at gmail.com

Fungus Gnats Online:
www.sciaroidea.info


On 21 March 2014 22:26, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> The situation is a bit more complicated. Really only Magnolia Press (not
> surprisingly, perhaps) does e-publication properly all the time. It
> preregisters all articles on ZooBank, and publishes only final versions
> with the date of publication clearly stated in the articles themselves.
> Other publishers make lots of mistakes, like thinking only articles with
> new taxa need ZooBank pregistration, thereby forgetting about lectotype
> designations, first-reviser actions, and other nomenclatural acts. The
> level of chaos has increased following e-only publication.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org>
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, 21 March 2014 8:26 PM
> Subject: [Taxacom] the zoological code and online publications
>
>
>
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2014/03/17/the-zoological-code-and-online-publication/
>
> "The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) has
> published a response<http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2014/f/zt03779p005.pdf>
> to Dubois et al.<http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3735.1.1> who have
> criticised the way online journals have interpreted the zoological Code<
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/> (the rules you should
> adhere to if you want to publish zoological species names correctly).
> BioMed Central's response is also published<
> http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2014/f/zt03779p008.pdf>, which expands
> some of the points we made earlier<
> http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/11/15/>. Nature also
> commented here<http://www.nature.com/news/the-new-zoo-1.14200>. Thanks to
> the 2012 Amendment<http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.219.3944> to the
> Code, things have moved on and online journals are now 'available' for
> nomenclature provided the species is registered in ZooBank<
> http://zoobank.org/> and certain
>  conditions<http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/z03450p008f.pdf> are
> met. The crux of the problem seems to be a misinterpretation of the Code
> for works published after 1999 and before 2012."
>
> (...)
>
> "BioMed Central wants to reassure authors who have entrusted their
> manuscripts to us that in the majority of cases pre-2012, paper copies were
> distributed and the rules adhered to. For cases where it is not clear if a
> paper version was issued prior to the 2012 Amendment or cannot be found, we
> will apply to the Commission and request they use their Plenary Power to
> make available previously published 'unavailable' names. If only names were
> available from the electronic version of record!"
>
> Donat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>