[CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication

• Previous message: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication
• Next message: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I also agree .

  Cheers,

  max


2018-04-10 6:22 GMT-03:00 Mieczysław Wolsan < wolsan at miiz.waw.pl 
>:

> I vote yes. 
>  
>  
>  
> Best wishes, 
>  
> Miecz 
>  
>  
>  
> *From:* CPN [mailto: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
] *On Behalf Of *Cantino, 
> Philip 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 9, 2018 9:09 PM 
> *To:* Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature < cpn at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
> *Cc:* Max Langer < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication 
>  
>  
>  
> In the absence of any further discussion, I think it is time for the CPN 
> to vote on the proposed rules changes, as shown in the draft I sent on 
> April 2.   Please reply to the listserv. 
>  
>  
>  
> Best regards, 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Apr 2, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote: 
>  
>  
>  
> Dear CPN members, 
>  
>  
>  
> It is time to return to the proposed revision of the PhyloCode articles on 
> publication, which the CPN considered in February and early March.  The 
> subcommittee that developed the proposal (Nico, Dick, Kevin and myself) 
> held a Skype conference on Friday to discuss your comments.  We appreciate 
> the time and thought that all of you devoted to this, and we carefully 
> considered your suggestions, some of which are reflected in the attached 
> revision.  The new Note 4.2.1 addresses issues about electronic publication 
> that were raised by many of you. 
>  
>  
>  
> In the attached draft, the only changes tracked are the new ones resulting 
> from your comments on the version I sent the CPN on Feb. 6. 
>  
>  
>  
> A few comments on the suggestions we did not adopt: 
>  
>  
>  
> Peer review:  Even though it was a departure from the rank-based codes, 
> the CPN decided years ago that peer review should be a requirement of the 
> PhyloCode.  The issue is one of quality control.  Although it is not always 
> possible to determine easily if a publication was peer-reviewed, having the 
> requirement reduces the likelihood of “taxonomic vandalism” (exploiting the 
> lack of a peer-review requirement to publish names indiscriminately, to 
> “scoop” rivals, or to sabotage the phylogenetic nomenclature system).  We 
> don’t envision checking every name to be sure it was peer-reviewed; 
> however, the requirement gives the CPN a basis to suppress works that are 
> shown to be flagrant violations. 
>  
>  
>  
> Regarding Rec. 4.4B, it was suggested that we mention CLOCKSS.  CLOCKSS is 
> a dark archive designed to be a failsafe in case of a disaster and, as 
> such, is largely inaccessible to individuals.  By contrast, our goal is to 
> encourage publication in outlets that are not only archived but also 
> provide broad accessibility.  In addition, we deliberately avoided listing 
> specific repositories, which may change over time.  On the other hand, 
> there is nothing in the recommendation to discourage the use of CLOCKSS. 
>  
>  
>  
> Regarding Note 7.2.2, we retained the rule that material contained only in 
> electronic supplements is not considered published as defined in this 
> code.  Our major concerns about electronic supplements are that they are 
> not as carefully reviewed as the main body of publications and that they 
> may have less permanence. 
>  
> I think we could vote soon on whether to adopt these revised rules, but 
> let’s wait a few days to give everyone a chance for a final reading.  There 
> is no need to respond to this email unless there is a point you want to 
> bring up for further consideration.  I will get back in touch with you 
> early next week and ask for a vote. 
>  
>  
>  
> I am copying this message separately to Max because the listserv emails 
> are not reaching him for some reason, even though he is listed on my 
> administrative page as a subscriber.  Please remember to copy your messages 
> to his addresses < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br 
, langer.mc at gmail.com 
> when you 
> send messages to the CPN listserv. 
>  
>  
>  
> Best regards, 
>  
> Phil 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Philip D. Cantino 
> Emeritus Professor 
> Department of Environmental and Plant Biology 
> Ohio University 
> Athens, OH 45701-2979 
>  
> Phone: (740) 593-1128 
> Fax: (740) 593-1130 
> email: cantino at ohio.edu 
< cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> <revised publication requirements.docx> 
>  
>  
>  
-- 
Max Cardoso Langer Ph.D. (Bristol, UK)
Departamento de Biologia
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto
Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP)
Av. Bandeirantes  3900
14040-901     Ribeirao Preto,  SP,  BRAZIL

Phone: +55 16 3315 3844
FAX: +55 16 3315 4886 http://sites.ffclrp.usp.br/paleo/ 
*I don't know why nobody told you how to unfold your love. *George Harrison
*Eu não sou mais do que o meu cadáver. *Darcy Ribeiro, por Paulo Freire
*A semântica é o último refúgio dos canalhas. *Eu mesmim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: < http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20180410/417e9eec/attachment-0001.html 
>

• Previous message: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication
• Next message: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]