Okay, so, if I understand Kevin's second point, the first kind of delay is caused because the editors could use some more help; the second kind might be mitigated with more pressure on authors from the editors. Both delays suggest that additional editorial help is needed, no? Also, I think it is important to consider the systematic community, because these are the people who will either use PhyloCode or not. If not, then we have a small group of people talking to each other and no one outside them caring very much. To be useful and used, a system has to have buy-in from its consumers. So the news that many people think that the PhyloCode is dead should be a wake-up call. Whereas accomplishing a complete classification of plants or animals may have taken decades in another century, and the Jepson Manual revisions still took 30 years (and well worth it; the existing manual was still in use, though), we are in a different age now, and we have more people to share the load; also, we're not exactly having a great following on Facebook and Twitter. Could the PhyloCode be published without the full Companion Volume but with a few examples of successful (and maybe unsuccessful) examples? This is the proposal that I suggest to the group. -- kp > Two comments on Dick's post: > > 1) I agree that we will eventually need to set one or more hard deadlines, > as we have already done for initial submissions. However, we are not > there yet. When we get close to the point where all of the revised drafts > that have been resubmitted are accepted, that will be the appropriate time > to set a hard deadline for the submission of revised manuscripts. > > 2) I am not in favor of the suggestion to accept any treatments that have > been revised and resubmitted but not finalized by the editors. For one > thing, this will lead to lower quality contributions, as even revised > versions sometimes still need significant work to get them up to par with > other contributions. For another thing, this is not the stage that is > causing the biggest delays. Instead, the biggest delays on the editors > side involve the processing of the initial reviews so that suggestions for > revisions can be sent to the authors, and on the authors side, the biggest > delays are with some authors taking a long time to resubmit their revised > manuscripts. > > Kevin > > On 11/16/11 6:00 PM, "Richard Olmstead" < olmstead at u.washington.edu > wrote: > > Thanks, Dave, and others who have commented. > > The only element of the discussion where I might have something to add > pertains to the disposition of the Companion Volume. I agree with Michel > and Kevin and others that we need to publish both the Code and the CV > together, because we have an obligation to do so, AND because it is the > right thing to do vis a vis the Code and our ultimate goals. I don't > think we should second guess our previous decisions in this matter just > because we are becoming frustrated with the slow pace of editing - many of > us are complicit with that. > > That said, I think we DO need to do something to make this happen sooner > than 2015 or 2056 or whenever. Michel's suggestion of adding another > editor for vert paleo to help Jacques might work. Another suggestion might > simply be to set a hard deadline for final drafts to send to the publisher > and whatever treatments are not ready to go will not be published in the > CV. That may seem a harsh suggestion, but it is one that offers a finite > solution. It doesn't mean that the other treatments cannot be published; > we hope that there will be a groundswell of publication sing the Code > after it is published, and maybe the late CV treatments will be the ones > to start the ball rolling. If we pursue something like the above, I would > suggest that any treatments that have been reviewed and revised, but have > not been finalized by the Editor, should be accepted in the revised form > returned by the author. > > Dick > > > > At 2:43 PM -0800 11/16/11, David Tank wrote: > Dear CPN members, > > In an attempt to move forward with an organized discussion of the several > issues that have been brought up, I would like to try to sum up the recent > flurry and request that all members of the CPN respond in some fashion to > the CPN listserve with their take on the issue(s) for which they have an > opinion. In general, when discussing issues that have been brought to the > CPN as a formal proposal to amend the draft code, once there has been a > gap of a few days in the discussion of a particular issue, I will call for > a vote, and when doing so, I will also give CPN members an opportunity to > speak up if they feel a vote is premature and more discussion is needed. > In the case of the three issues below, I don't think that any of these > would require a vote, unless proposals are submitted to the CPN. > > First, based on our vote last week, the Cellinese et al proposal will be > posted on the ISPN website along with a call for feedback (before the end > of December) for the CPN to consider in our discussion of this proposal. > Any feedback received will be distributed to the CPN to aid in the > discussion of the proposal that will proceed in early 2012. > > Second, below I have enumerated what I believe are the main issues that > have been raised and need a broader discussion by the CPN (several CPN > members have already responded to these issues in the "Publication-Related > Issues" thread): > > 1) A meeting of the CPN sometime during the first six months of 2012. At > this point I would like to get feedback from others concerning both the > necessity (as opposed to email discussions) and feasibility (likelihood of > attendance sans financial support) of a CPN meeting outside of a formal > meeting of the society. > > 2) The Companion Volume issue. Two potential solutions have been > presented, 1) remove the Companion Volume as a requirement for > implementing the code, which would require a proposal to change Item 6 in > the Preamble and Art. 7.1 of the code, or 2) push for the addition of > editors to speed up the process. As Michel Laurin pointed out, solution 2 > is an issue that is more appropriately discussed by the Council, because > it does not involve changes to the draft code (as is Mike Taylor's > suggestion to reduce the scope of the Companion Volume). I'm sure that > the rest of the CPN has an opinion regarding solution 1, so this is what > should be discussed. > > 3) Electronic publication. As mentioned, this would require changes to > Articles 4 and 5 of the code. To my knowledge, a proposal to change these > has not yet been brought to the CPN, but it seems likely that one will > (Kevin indicated that Nico may be preparing a proposal on this as well). > This will require discussion at that time. > > If anyone feels that I have missed something, please let me know. > > Best, > Dave > > Chair, CPN >
> David C. Tank > Assistant Professor & Director, Stillinger Herbarium > University of Idaho > 208.885.7033 > dtank at uidaho.edu > http://www.phylodiversity.net/dtank/ > > >
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > > >
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > -- Kevin Padian Department of Integrative Biology & Museum of Paleontology University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140 510-642-7434 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.