[Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one new species

[Stephen Thorpe]

Nice try Rich!

>I am saying your premises (what you refer to as "facts") are flawed, and hence there is neither coincidence nor conspiracy<

No that is not what you have been saying. You have been publicly accusing me of "conspiracy theories" (your words), not flawed premises. Now you are just back peddling a little.

>and/or recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners that were ignored?<

Again putting words into my mouth. I made absolutely no suggestion that any recommendations were ignored. I have no idea if any were ignored or not. What I do know is that the answers one gets to questions depends on what questions are asked, how they are asked, how well they are explained, and how well the issue is advertised (I recall, for example, a security manager who said something like "legally, we have to identify security cameras with a sign, but there is nothing to say that sign has to be big!")

>Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the Amendment is a "100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model"and b) how it "fails for many alternative models"?<

Sure. The Amendment has created a situation whereby effectively "the Zootaxa way is the best way, and everybody else should follow or else risk non-compliance with the Code". The main issue concerns online first publication of articles before final pagination and assignment to a volume/issue. This became such a big problem that the "metadata solution" was quickly drafted as a "band aid", but it is far from ideal. Not all publishers have the resources to do things the Zootaxa way, and why should they have to? Zootaxa apparently still publishes online and print editions (more or less) simultaneously, so the whole online aspect, as someone today already noted on Taxacom, is kind of redundant anyway for Zootaxa. It appears to be there just in case the journal needs to go e-only for some reason (this may increase profit margins by reducing overheads, though, alternatively, hard copy subscriptions might be a good way for researchers to strategically ditch funding, but that doesn't matter for present purposes). So, in summary: basically, the date written on a Zootaxa PDF can be confidently taken to be the date of valid publication, without any complications.

>> and (2) the owner of Zootaxa had a significant input into the Amendment.<<
>Really?  How so?<
By being part of the decision making process. It is a pretty good analogy with something like this: if you were on trial, would you accept even just one of the 12 jurors being related to the victim? As I said, the case for a COI here is pretty clear. I'm surprised that you are claiming otherwise.

Stephen


--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/1/16, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one	new species
 To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, "'Doug Yanega'" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "'Frank T. Krell'" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>
 Cc: "'engel'" <msengel at ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 25 January, 2016, 12:02 PM
 
 Sorry, Stephen, but this is
 nonsense.
 
 > The facts are that (1) the Amendment is a 100% fit with
 the Zootaxa publishing model, but fails for many alternative
 models; 
 
 Can you elaborate on: a) in what way the Amendment is a
 "100% fit with the Zootaxa publishing model", and b) how it
 "fails for many alternative models"?  Since you assert
 this as a "fact", I would expect your elaborations to be
 devoid of opinion.
 
 > and (2) the owner of Zootaxa
 > had a significant input into the Amendment. 
 
 Really?  How so?  The only role that all
 Commissioners played that was not open to full public access
 was the decision on how to craft the final draft of the
 ratified Amendment that was voted on.  Could you please
 explain where the changes between the originally published
 draft and the final published version of the Amendment
 differed in a way that favored the Zootaxa publishing model
 to the detriment of other publishing models, and/or
 recommendations from other publishers or non-Commissioners
 that were ignored?
 
 > So you are saying that is mere "coincidence", are you?
 
 
 No, I am saying your premises (what you refer to as "facts")
 are flawed, and hence there is neither coincidence nor
 conspiracy.
 
 Aloha,
 Rich