[CPN] Recent items for discussion

• Previous message: [CPN] Recent items for discussion
• Next message: [CPN] Recent items for discussion
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Greetings all,

	I thought I'd chime on a few issues in general, and specifically to answer Dave T's enumerated request for responses (listed at end of e-mail). I am extremely glad to see the increased activity of the ISPN and ISPN website, and I am in favor of putting all proposals and discussions up there (species, electronic, journal, etc.) for implementation... after the Code is published. Our primary goal at this point is to get a quality Code and Companion Volume out there, though I am in favor of discussing and possibly voting on post-publication changes. I and probably a lot of others are waiting for the Code to establish names and the lack of a projected publication date is rather problematic. So, I volunteer my effort to help make the Code a reality (see below).

1. I think a meeting is sufficient but not necessary at this point. We may, and will eventually, reach a threshold of activity that will necessitate a physical meeting, but my guess is that that point will be in the wake of all the effects brought about by the publication of a Code. A virtual meeting in the first 6 months of 2012 is a good suggestion and compromise, especially in light of previously mentioned travel issues.

2. It does seem like we have a contractual and moral obligation to complete the Companion Volume. It has been written into the Code since version one, going on 12 years old now, and I think we can all agree that simultaneous publication of a Code and quality Volume is the best of all outcomes. So, I would rather speed up the process than jettison the volume. The suggested solutions are to put some hard deadlines on authors, and add additional editors (whether these would be assistants or full-, assistant-, or sub-editors has not been raised and is probably semantic anyway). Kevin dQ has brought up the points that 1) we are not there yet to put hard deadlines on submission of revised manuscripts, and 2) enlisting more editors would require additional additional work. Kevin P is right, we have more people to share the load: 22 officers at last count. This is infinitely doable. My $0.02 is this: 
	1) Based on Kevin dQ's September 6th progress report and my math (forgive any errors), we have about 59 entries needing one or two reviews. I suggest putting a hard deadline on getting those reviews back, and officers doing reviews that are not returned or never had enough reviewers. Once all the reviews are in and returned to the authors, then put a hard deadline on the authors. 
	2) I am afraid I did not quite understand how additional editors would create more work than they offset, but my guess is that is the organization and distribution of entries already in the pipeline, which number about 80. That leaves the 59 still in the review process and the 79 that either need initial processing by an editor or need the author resubmit their final versions. My suggestion is let current editors finish the 80 in the pipeline, and have enlisted editors handle the entries that have not been initially processed. Ideally this would be three new editors. This should speed up the editorial process by roughly a factor of two. Existing editors can take a look at random editorial responses to assure continuity.
	Whether, these suggestions are taken or not, I volunteer to help with the editorial process as an assistant or an editor. This well help mitigate the large number of VP submissions.

3. I await Nico C's formal proposal on electronic publication, but I believe it is the responsibility of all professional publicationscpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
to have hard copy versions somewhere. The number and location is up for discussion. As for whether consider the early online version or print version for nomenclatural acts, I prefer the latter but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Best,
-Brian A


On Nov 18, 2011, at 4:59 PM, de Queiroz, Kevin wrote:

> I don't know that we need more editorial help, as enlisting additional editors would require additional work on the part of the current ones.  The critical issue is whether Jacques will be able to make the Companion Volume a priority in the very near future. 
>  
> While I agree that a system needs buy-in to be successful, I think that the best way to get buy-in is to produce a good product.  Once the product comes out, it will matter very little that some people previously thought the project was dead (or that it had few followers on Facebook and Twitter). 
>  
> I don't know what counts as a full Companion Volume.  We never had good coverage of all groups, so it won't be full in that sense.   And some people will likely never resubmit their revised contributions (by a hard deadline to be determined) and thus will have to be left out.  However, I am strongly opposed to publishing a volume that does not contain all of the contributions that were submitted and revised.  Frankly, I don't understand why people are so impatient.  This project has been consuming huge chunks of my life, and I want it to be finished as badly as anyone does, but I'm not going to take a quick and dirty out. 
>  
> Kevin (de Queiroz) 
>  
>  
> On 11/18/11 5:41 PM, "Kevin Padian" < kpadian at Berkeley.EDU 
> wrote: 
>  
> 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 
 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpnDear 
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 
 

• Previous message: [CPN] Recent items for discussion
• Next message: [CPN] Recent items for discussion
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]