[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species - PS(2)

Thu Jan 21 22:50:59 CST 2016

PS: There is no more reason to think that the January 2016 print issue of Systematic Entomology is published than there is to think that the March 2016 print edition of Cretaceous Research is published! Both are equally published online as final versions. Online first publication of print editions is potentially a misleading problem for determination of availability and publication dates!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 22/1/16, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species - PS
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
 Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org, msengel at ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com, Frank.Krell at dmns.org
 Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 4:56 PM

 PS: That may not be quite true? The
 January 2016 print edition of Sytematic Entomology is
 published at least online (but is it really published yet as
 hard copy?) So, Pohl & Beutel's article may be validly
 published at present, if the print edition really is
 published already in hard copy. However what I said still
 holds, i.e. oh dear, it is quite possible that nothing in
 Systematic Entomology has ever been validly published
 e-first! All those Zoobank preregistrations meant nothing,
 in the absence of archiving info. So to determine
 publication dates and priority, each article must be checked
 on ZooBank for archiving data, and if there is none, then
 any new names date from the publication date of the print
 edition (which could be tricky to determine). All that
 effort wasted on preregistrations, with the risk of someone
 else publishing new names for the same taxa while waiting
 for the print edition! Messy ...

 Stephen

 --------------------------------------------
 On Fri, 22/1/16, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new
 species - IMPORTANT BAD NEWS!
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>
  Cc: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org,
 msengel at ku.edu, pscranston at gmail.com,
 Frank.Krell at dmns.org
  Received: Friday, 22 January, 2016, 4:47 PM

  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