[Taxacom] A lost world in Wallacea

[Donat Agosti]

Please find here a news item covering our position and activity at Plazi in regards to this Science Magazine article, and in more general where we should go with taxonomic publishing, now that we have great opportunities to not only disseminate our knowledge including the description of new species, but also to store it in a robust repository and make it findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable to that third parties, like GBIF, can use it. This way, even descriptions hidden beyond paywall in supplements are part of the open global biodiversity knowledge.

http://plazi.org/news/beitrag/science-magazine-why-not-be-more-open-liberated-biodiversity-data-as-a-win-win-case/0a59a0abb47d3115a1a98a6d845f8041/ 



Cheers
Donat


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Geoff Read via Taxacom
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 7:21 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] A lost world in Wallacea

EXTERNAL SENDER


Dear all,

Has anyone examined if the taxonomy in the 'Science' new Indonesian birds article, with respect to only being in the author supplement, is code complaint?  This practice is highly unsatisfactory in my opinion, & as usually badly formatted it is awful to read & use, but it must be that there is no firepower under the code to prevent it, since journals repeatedly do it. Yes?  No?

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2F367%2F6474%2F167&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C98791c69f2e64d9d1d0008d79b1578dc%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637148388867616084&sdata=zi%2B5gsheHyx8h%2FoVhe2imZYPsWU1k3qDzIYWmpbjyik%3D&reserved=0

Frank Krell once wrote an article in BZN in which he firmly stated "Electronic supplements are to be considered unavailable for the purposes of zoological nomenclature."  Is this incorrect? Surely there are qualifications needed for that statement?

If high-profile e-journals want to keep dirty boring taxonomy from contaminating the purity of the sparkling article text they could put it in an appendix that was in the same pdf, i.e. in the article in a separate last section. It would be fully code complaint. If the journal is also print then the taxonomy could be left out of the print version. Why the downgrading to separate pdfs in the e-version?

Geoff

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

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C98791c69f2e64d9d1d0008d79b1578dc%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637148388867616084&sdata=zyjZGojRP3SNLreUty6IL1Q4ceMRG4u0xqnk4fZwlhU%3D&reserved=0
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org&data=02%7C01%7Cagosti%40amnh.org%7C98791c69f2e64d9d1d0008d79b1578dc%7Cbe0003e8c6b9496883aeb34586974b76%7C0%7C0%7C637148388867616084&sdata=TjVH%2B7CRkKApv8AZ2gnzn3p0Dv9d8xjP6%2B7z6N5PIkc%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.