[Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two

Tue Jan 21 17:21:50 CST 2020

Dear Dr. Zimmerman,
Regarding your email from December 23, 2019, could you or Dr. Penev (who
was in CC at that time) inform us what is the result of your investigation?
Important things that we need to know and that should be known to you two
being the editors:
1) How many copies of each article and issue of DEZ are printed by default?
2) When are the full issues printed (e.g. DD/June and DD/December,
irregularly, etc.)?
3) Are DEZ copies being regularly deposited in public libraries? If so,
which are those?
4) On which date was the separata or issue containing the paper by
Meierotto et al. (2019) physically printed?
5) Where is the original version of Meierotto et al. (2019)? When will it
be online again?
6) Why the original version was not safely stored in Zenodo but the edited
version was?
7) Which measures have been discussed/implemented with Pensoft for original
versions not disappearing ever again?
8) If I am an author and the e-version of my paper is incorrectly
registered in ZooBank by Pensoft and therefore unavailable, am I entitled
to a refund? If so, how much?

Given the seriousness of the problem for electronic publishing and for
Zoological Nomenclature, I hope that Taxacom won't have to wait much longer
for an informative reply.
Thanking you in advance,

Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
FI-20014 University of Turku
Finland
ResearchGate profile
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>

El lun., 23 dic. 2019 a las 21:45, Stephen Thorpe (<
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>) escribió:

> Note that merely printing hard copies to order is not valid publication
> according to the Code. There needs to be a sufficient print run made
> available for purchase or free on a specific date (the publication date).
> If there is no evidence for this, e.g. date stamped copies in physical
> libraries, then it cannot be verified and I'm not sure where that leaves us!
> Merry Xmas, Stephen
>
>
> On Monday, 23 December 2019, 02:44:28 pm UTC, Zimmermann Dominique via
> Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> the issue is printed and available. You can order it online https://dez.pensoft.net/issues
> or receive it in a number of libraries. All subject editors also receive a
> copy.
>
> I am not aware of any changes made after publication and was not involved
> in ISSN registration process but contacted the respective persons to
> clarify this.
>
> Wishing you a merry Christmas, and all the best for 2020,
>
> Dominique Zimmermann
>
>
>
> Von: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Dezember 2019 20:31
> An: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>;
> Zimmermann Dominique <dominique.zimmermann at nhm-wien.ac.at>
> Betreff: Re: OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two
>
> Hi Rich,
> Sorry if my writing confused you, English is not my mother tongue. Please,
> note that my example is not based on versions "of an unpublished work prior
> to the first edition of the work that fulfills the requirement for
> publication under the Code". My example is based on two formally published
> online versions, which in the opinion of the publishers and authors
> fulfilled the requirements of the Code until Stephen Thorpe highlighted
> that it was not so. The first pdf version that I am mentioning is an
> official one and it was online for a few days until it was reissued.
> It is clear to me that ZooBank LSIDs are not required for different
> unpublished versions but just when a final working version becomes a
> publishable work and is indeed published. What I am discussing is the fact
> that there were two published and supposedly Code-compliant versions that
> were not labeled as such, one being eliminated and disappearing leaving no
> other trace than the few pdfs that were quickly downloaded after
> publication by DEZ, and that those two published versions did need ZooBank
> LSIDs.
> Again, the online version not being clearly labeled as v2 is also contrary
> to *Recommendation 8D. Content immutable*. I will copy that here, since I
> didn't do it in my last email:
> Recommendation 8D. Content immutable. The content of a work is immutable
> once it is published. Corrections should be made through notices of errata
> or other separate publications. Second or other additional printings of a
> work should be clearly labeled as such, with date of publication stated in
> the work, even if no changes have been introduced.
> I have compared the two versions. The second version contains fixes to
> ZooBank links that were broken, figures 10 and 19 changed slightly,
> pagination on page headers was fixed from 119-146 (incorrect) to 119-145
> (correct). The tree on page 145 also changed slightly.
> In my opinion, that accounts for a different version, a scientific paper
> that was reissued instead of publishing a corrigenda to broken links, page
> headers, etc. It should have had another DOI and another ZooBank number.
> This is a very serious issue. We have walked a long way trying to make
> online publishing Code-compliant and more than that, as trustable as
> immutable paper print. But if post-publication, post-compliance changes are
> made and original versions vanish, that is a threat to Code compliance and
> trustability of the electronic publishing system as a whole.
> What happens, for example, in the following case? An original online
> version is published on 01.01.2020 without being registered in ZooBank. On
> 04.01.2020, the publisher realizes the mistake, registers the publication
> in ZooBank, directly edits version 1, adds the ZooBank LSID, and reissues
> the paper but keeps the same date of 01.01.2020. Our community is nearly
> defenseless against something like this. In my previous email and above I
> showed that original published versions can be wiped off. If we add that it
> is not possible to see who recorded what on which date in ZooBank (users
> and entry dates are not public), we have virtually no means to
> independently check for original compliance. In my example, everyone would
> believe that the version actually dates from 01.01.2020 and that the
> ZooBank registration was made anytime before that date.
> This also brings back the old question on how much change is acceptable
> change. I thought that we settled for zero change years ago. Maybe I'm
> wrong. If so, someone please explain to me and to the community how much
> change can occur before a version 1 is considered a version 2. One dot? One
> comma? One repaired link? One adjective? One full sentence? A forgotten
> ZooBank LSID?
> Anyway, as Stephen wrote long ago and as I confirmed, the pdf version(s)
> of that paper is not Code-compliant. I would very much like to know if
> there are printed versions already out, how many and in which public
> library I could access one. I have copied here Dominique Zimmermann, DEZ
> Editor-in-Chief. Maybe she could let us know if the names are already
> available from the printed edition or if still there are no printed copies
> out. We shouldn't be having discussions over unpublished names.
>
> A separate problem. I would also like to mention that the online version
> of DEZ seems to be issued under an incorrectly registered ISSN (
> https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1860-1324). It gives the key title
> "Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin. Deutsche
> entomologische Zeitschrift". However, the last time I looked, the successor
> of the "Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin" was not the
> DEZ but Zoosystematics and Evolution, now also edited by Pensoft. The ISSN
> of Zoosystematics and Evolution (
> https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1860-0743) does not show that
> journal as the successor of the "Mitteilungen". I hope that someone will
> correct those records soon. Otherwise they may end up polluting our
> bibliographical databases.
>
> Cheers,
> Charlie
>
> --
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> ResearchGate profile<
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Publons profile<
> https://publons.com/author/1324309/carlos-alberto-martinez-munoz#profile>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution<
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:48:29 -1000
> From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>>
> To: 'Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz' <biotemail at gmail.com<mailto:
> biotemail at gmail.com>>
> Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] OMG! DNA only descriptions! - Round Two
> Message-ID: <00c301d5b755$4f54d340$edfe79c0$@bishopmuseum.org<
> http://bishopmuseum.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain;      charset="utf-8"
>
> Art. 8.5.3.3. The following are examples of *inadmissible errors*: (...) A
> publisher discovers errors in a work and *reissues it* to correct those
> errors, *but* instead of registering the new edition, *uses the original
> ZooBank number*; the revised edition is not available because it was not
> separately registered.
>
> This is a bit confusing and misleading. There may be dozens (hundreds?) of
> "editions" of an unpublished work prior to the first edition of the work
> that
> fulfills the requirement for publication under the Code. This is true for
> paper
> publications as well (draft manuscripts, reviewer copies, galley proofs,
> etc.).
> The existence of these prior unpublished (in the sense of the Code) works
> does
> not in any way impact the availability of a work that is eventually
> published in
> accordance with the Code. From the perspective of the Code, these previous
> unpublished editions do not exist, and therefore have no impact whatsoever
> on
> the existence of a later published work.
>
> For example, a ZooBank LSID is created for a work intended to be published
> electronically. That LSID appears within the galley proofs, which itself
> is not
> published in the sense of the Code. The work is later issued in a way that
> is
> Code compliant. The existence of the LSID within the galley proofs (un
> unpublished work) does not therefore require that the published edition
> must be
> registered anew.
>
> This is a simple example of a very complex problem that will be fixed in
> the 5th
> Edition; but the point is that the last example under Art. 8.5.3.3 (quoted
> above) can be very misleading. In a situation such as the one that has been
> described in this thread, we DO NOT WANT people to create a new
> registration
> record in ZooBank. That would only apply for a truly different work (like a
> corrigendum, which itself must contain all the elements necessary for
> conferring
> nomenclatural availability), but which itself is a completely different
> work
> from a previously "published" (but technically non-Code-compliant) work.
>
> But the fact that these examples exist underscores that the separation of
> requirements in two separate places (i.e., both within the work itself and
> within the ZooBank registration record) leads to myriad complexities,
> which are
> unintended consequences of the Amendment to the Code to allow for
> electronic
> publication. I'll stay off my usual soapbox on this point (for now).
>
> Aloha, Rich
>
> --------------------------------------
> Information gemaess UGB Par. 14 Abs. 1
>
> Naturhistorisches Museum
> 1010 Wien, Burgring 7
> Firmenbuchnummer: FN 236724z
> Firmenbuchgericht: Handelsgericht Wien
> UID: ATU 38020609
> Rechtsform: Wissenschaftliche Anstalt
> oeffentlichen Rechts des Bundes
>
> --------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 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:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for 32 some years, 1987-2019.
>