[Taxacom] Article 8 compliance

[Geoff Read]

Just as a practical tip for determining true Code publication date with
online pdfs, there is the 'creation date' in file properties.  If it
doesn't match up with what the publisher says, there's something to look
into.

For instance with online-before-print I can have the first online
non-code-published version stored in my pdfs which has a creation date of
28/11/2015, and then check the current assigned-to-print version and find
a creation date of 7/10/2016, nearly a year later. This example comes from
JMBAUK, and yes they really do take nearly a year to produce the print
version.  They are honest with the print issue date - November 2016, but
they have the published online date as 1 December 2015.

Tracking and updating name dates is such a waste of time.  But I do it -
not very efficiently.

Geoff


On Thu, March 30, 2017 10:32 pm, John Noyes wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I thought it might be of interest to at least some of you with regards to
> changes of so-called versions of record and how some journals are doing
> this to make an article compliant with Article 8 of the ICZN.
>
> On several occasions recently I have noted that some journals that have
> changed their publication from print and e-publication to e-publication
> only, often without any indication that they have done so. In at least two
> cases, the new, e-only journals have published articles that included
> novel nomenclatural acts. The publisher stated on their web site and/or on
> the article itself that it was the final version/version  of record. In
> these cases the articles were not Article 8 compliant as neither included
> evidence of preregistration on ZooBank. A while later (in both cases the
> following year) the publisher reissued the same article with the same DOI,
> journal title, volume and page numbers with a statement hidden away in the
> text that the article had been preregistered on ZooBank, thus changing the
> version of record (final version) and consequently the status of the new
> names proposed therein. Being the custodian of a well-used on-line
> taxonomic database I had initially included the new names in the database
> as unavailable because they were non-code compliant. Had I been unaware of
> the change to the so-called versions of record they would have remained
> that way. Luckily, during a subsequent visit to the publisher's web site I
> became aware of the changes. In such cases I believe that if a publisher
> changes the version of record in any way they must republish it as a
> separate article compiled in a different volume with different pagination
> and with a different DOI so that the correction does not go unnoticed. Has
> anyone else come across similar cases?
>
> John
>
> John Noyes
> Scientific Associate
> Department of Life Sciences
> Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road
> South Kensington
> London SW7 5BD
> UK
> jsn at nhm.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
> Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about
> chalcidoids and more):
> www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>


--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz