Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta

[Geoff Read]

Hi,

I had forgotten the details and opinions expressed by participants, but the question of supplements was discussed in January 2020 (17th -21st) for an article published in Science.  
It seems that the handy MarkMail archive of Taxacom is no longer available, but if you have your own email archive look for the topic "A lost world in Wallacea".

In that instance at least the main part of the supplement was pdf format so a more tolerable choice than the current Zoologica Scripta MSWord file.

The relevant Code rule is: 8.1.3.2. [The work must have been produced by a method that assures] "widely accessible electronic copies with fixed content and layout".

It can be argued that even MSWord produces 'copies with fixed content'. The file sits on the publisher's website and, while what happens after it is downloaded is less restricted (though some security can be built in), the publisher's file on the server doesn't change and could be compared by checksum at any time. 

Code compliant!  The authors of the article meant that the downloaded copies held by the recipients must be of fixed content, but that isn't what the article specifies, and probably isn't possible anyway.

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



>---- Original Message ----
>From: Geoff Read via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
>To: "taxacom at lists.ku.edu" <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
>Sent: Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 11:10 AM
>Subject: Taxacom: The practice of Zoologica Scripta
>
>Hi all,
>
>One for taxacom as iczn-list isn't working, & it may be of wider interest  ...
>
>A colleague has alerted me to a newly published work in which the taxonomy is relegated to a MSWord supplement plus no fewer than 10 other supplement files for the figures, so the complete 'work' is split over a total of 4 file types including the pdf, and 12 files in total. This is inconvenient for those interested in the new species and I think undesirable, but the work has a ZooBank registration given in the pdf part, and I have no doubt the taxonomic elements in the supplement can be gathered together for entry in the database I volunteer for.
>
>However, Zoologica Scripta have this Disclaimer: "There is an ongoing debate of the validity of names for detailed species descriptions provided as supplementary information as in the Zoologica Scripta. This may or may not be considered a grey zone of the convention specified by The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. However, it is up to the authors to decide if they accept the practice of the Zoologica Scripta. In case you disagree, please submit species descriptions to other journals with a more taxonomic focus. In retrospect questions after publication on the validity of scientific names will not be considered."
>
>I wasn't aware of such a debate.  Perhaps someone knows where this treatment by Zoologica Scripta could fall short of the Code requirements?
>