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

[Laurent Raty]

Ok, that's at least an interesting new reading.

You mean you do *not* regard the final pdf file as a copy of the 
published file at all; and you consider that the early view file, having 
been obtainable for just a few weeks on the publisher website, before it 
was deleted from the Internet, stands alone as "published"?

Do you really think that the so-defined "published work" satisfies 8.1.3.2 ?

In my reading the early view file cannot differ from the final one in 
content and layout, and they *must* technically BOTH TOGETHER form the 
"version of record" (ie, they cannot differ in any aspect of their 
"content and layout"); if this is not the case, the early view file 
cannot be deemed published, because it would automatically be excluded 
from what constitutes published work by Art. 9.9. It's only the fact 
that it is not a preliminary version that allows the early view file to 
stand as published.

L -


On 01/26/2016 09:57 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Laurent,
>
> Once again you are mistaken, but that doesn't reflect badly on you,
> it reflects badly on the the almost bewilderingly confusing way that
> the Code has been written.
>
> As long as the early view file is considered to be the version of
> record (with preregistration on ZooBank truly indicated within), all
> that matters is that the PDF file for it contains something which can
> be reasonably interpreted as a date of publication. If the subsequent
> print edition is different in any regard, this is irrelevant.
>
> So, in your example a statement "Systematic Entomology (2015) ..." in
> the online edition contains a date of publication (incompletely
> specified as 2015), so, all other things being equal, is Code
> compliant. It is irrelevant what happens after that. What is
> technically made available is the online first PDF (which probably
> never gets archived, but actual archiving isn't actually a Code
> requirement!)
>
> It is all a big mess but a few things are clear enough.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen