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

[Richard Pyle]

You're trying to bait me again, aren't you? :-)

OK, I'll nibble... 

If the Zootaxa model publishes on paper concurrently with the electronic edition, the Amendment is completely irrelevant to that model. Most other online publishing models (e.g., PLoS, PeerJ, Pensoft, and many, many others) benefit from the Amendment far more than the Zootaxa does, and have done so for years now.

Coincidence?  You decide...

Rich



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:31 PM
> To: 'Laurent Raty'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk; neale at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Important note Re: two names online published - one
> new species
> 
> Rich,
> 
> How can you not agree? The Zootaxa model only publishes online after
> addition of metadata. Therefore the "metadata problem" doesn't arise. Any
> publisher which does publish online before metadata has been added, and
> there are plenty who do, is open to the "metadata problem". I really don't
> understand how you can fail to agree with this! You are not making sense!
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 29/1/16, 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>, "'Laurent Raty'"
> <l.raty at skynet.be>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  Cc: j.noyes at nhm.ac.uk, neale at bishopmuseum.org
>  Received: Friday, 29 January, 2016, 11:26 AM
> 
>  > OK, so you will now
>  presumably also agree that this problem affects all  > online first papers
> which don't  publish using the same model that Zootaxa  > does?
> 
>  Nope. No agreement there.
> 
>  Rich
> 
>