[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species - IMPORTANT BAD NEWS!

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hold on a minute, Doug! We now have a much bigger problem! Pohl & Beutel's name isn't available either!! Look at the ZooBank records for article and journal: 

http://zoobank.org/References/07554C01-DEC3-4080-A337-B1F46BC9070F
http://zoobank.org/References/94AA9CFD-6807-409B-BCC0-863D0AACA0CC

Nothing for archiving!

Oh dear, it is quite possible that nothing in Systematic Entomology has ever been validly published e-first!

Stephen



--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 22/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 4:37 PM
 
 
     On 1/21/16
 5:41 PM, Stephen Thorpe
       wrote:
 
     
     
       Yes, but the question is whether (4) could ever
 be expected to be the responsibility of an author?
 
 
     
     I shouldn't have to remind you, but...
 
     
 
     For the better part of a decade, during the struggle to
 get a
     provision into the Code to allow for e-only publication
 of
     nomenclatural acts, one of the BIGGEST concerns that
 taxonomists
     expressed - one of the major points of resistance to
 change - was
     the fear that it was impossible to ensure the longevity
 of
     electronic documents. I have an archive containing piles
 of such
     comments, posted right here in Taxacom, to demonstrate
 this.
 
     
 
     It was considered by the taxonomic community ABSOLUTELY
 IMPERATIVE
     that the Code amendment make it mandatory that
 any author
     who wanted to make an e-only work that was also
 Code-compliant be
     required to tell readers where that work was going to be
 archived,
     so in 50 or 100 years, people could still find and link
 to online
     copies - i.e., ensuring that no nomenclaturally-relevant
 works could
     ever vanish into the ether. This is what you wanted, and
 we gave you
     what you insisted upon - the best possible mechanism to
 ensure
     archival longevity and accessibility of e-only works.
 
     
 
     It is entirely up to the author whether or not to
 publish in an
     e-only journal; they are making that choice themselves,
 and thereby
     knowingly choosing to subject their work to additional
 criteria for
     availability, and ALSO thereby making themselves
 responsible for
     knowing whether the publication venue itself fulfills
 these
     additional criteria. When an author chooses a particular
 e-only
     journal, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they
 know
     something about the journal they are submitting to - in
 particular,
     knowing whether the archiving practices of the journal
 that's chosen
     are Code-compliant, and then making sure that readers
 know where the
     work is archived - is ALSO quite clearly an author's
 responsibility.
     It all goes along with the choice to publish digitally
 in the first
     place. 
 
     
 
     Of course, if a journal can't or won't assure
 you, as an author,
     that their archival protocol for digital works is
 Code-compliant,
     then you shouldn't publish in that journal!
 
     
 
     Sincerely,
 
     -- 
 Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology
 Research Museum
 Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype:
 dyanega
 phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
 UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful
 disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby
 Dick, Chap. 82