[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 11:16:10 UTC 2014

OK, looks like we're on the same page.

Regarding the idea changing the diagnosis in a subsequent version: so
long as the name is keyed to the original (version 1), then that
change would have no formal force -- it would have the same formal
standing as any other subsequent publication (by Darren and me, or by
different authors) that gave a different diagnosis.

I do agree that the details of this would need to be worked through by
the Commission. But the outlines and principles seem pretty clear to
me.

-- Mike.

On 25 March 2014 11:01, Vladimir Blagoderov <vblago at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> I agree with you on almost everything. Perhaps I should have said
> ""versioning" is completely unacceptable for taxonomic literature under
> current code". Yes, rules can be changed, and should be changed, however,
> until it is done we must follow them. It is possible to implement
> versioning, but it needs universal acceptance. What happens if in version 2
> you and Darren decide to change diagnosis and, thus, circumscription of the
> taxon? Should not it be a new name if it is a new entity? Nobody can decide
> it unilaterally
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> --
> Dr Vladimir Blagoderov, FLS
> Department of Life Sciences
> The Natural History Museum
> Cromwell Road, London
> SW7 5BD, UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6629 (office)
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6895 (SBIL)
> Fax: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
>
> e-mail:
> vlab at nhm.ac.uk
> vblago at gmail.com
>
> Fungus Gnats Online:
> www.sciaroidea.info
>
>
> On 25 March 2014 09:41, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 March 2014 09:20, Vladimir Blagoderov <vblago at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dear Douglas,
>> >
>> > As one of the authors of the publication you mentioned I must say that
>> > we
>> > criticised some inconsistent practices of modern methods of publication,
>> > not
>> > methods themselves. For example, "versioning" is completely unacceptable
>> > for
>> > taxonomic literature as it jeopardises stability of taxonomic names.
>> > Once
>> > published, the paper must remain immutable, and any errors as Mike noted
>> > above must be corrected in a new publication even at expence of several
>> > months.
>>
>> I don't agree at all. The proper nomenclatural authority for a name
>> need not, as now, be of the form "Xenoposeidon Taylor and Naish 2007".
>> It can be "Xenoposeidon Taylor and Naish 2007, version 1". So long as
>> that version of that paper can be obtained, we have taxonomic
>> stability. If Darren and I subsequently revise the paper to produce a
>> version 2, that needn't affect the authority for the name Xenoposeidon
>> at all.
>>
>> > It may not be ideal, but this is the rule, laid down in the codes of
>> > nomenclature.
>>
>> The rules are our servants, not our masters. They exist for our
>> benefit, not us for theirs. They can be changed when changing
>> circumstances mean they no longer serve us, as happened with the
>> recent electronic-publication amendment. There is no reason why the
>> ICZN/ICBN rules shouldn't similarly be amended to take account of
>> versions.
>>
>> Self-referential example: see this version of Wikipedia's page on the
>> ICZN, from 5 July 2012 (before the electronic-publication amendment):
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature&oldid=500828278
>>
>> It's ridiculous that upstart organisation like Wikipedia are running
>> rings around us as a scholarly community. We should be the ones
>> pioneering new and more powerful approaches, not trailing reluctantly
>> along behind Wikipedia.
>>
>> -- Mike.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>