<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<span class="st"></span>Dear CPN members,<br>
<br>
I have made a few comments on the proposed PhyloCode articles on
what constitutes publication (see attached).<br>
<br>
I see two problems:<br>
<br>
Note 4.2.1. How do we deal with potential violations of the rule
that papers must be peer reviewed? Must there be *evidence* that a
journal (or paper) is peer-reviewed? In other words, is *lack of
evidence* for peer-review sufficient reason to consider a name
unavailable? How can we tell if a paper was not peer-reviewed? (no
journal will state this in print)<br>
<br>
Art. 4.5 and 5.1. "An electronic publication must not be altered
after it is published" and the publication date is when it "first
becomes available either in print or online".<br>
These rules seem to accept online pre-publications (pdfs), which may
be (i) an accepted (but unedited) manuscript, (ii) uncorrected
proofs, or (iii) corrected proofs (version of record). Any of these
could be regarded as 'the 'first published version' of the
manuscript, depending on which versions are published. Some journals
publish all these before the final paginated version appears online.
Art. 4.5 in its present form would suggest that a published
manuscript version could be the ‘correct’ one (because it’s
published first), and that the version of record and final version
are just ‘corrections’ or ‘revisions’. Clearly, this is not
desirable.<br>
<br>
I am attaching three papers on this subject, which I hope helps us
make up our minds on this matter.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
George<br>
<br>
Dr George Sangster<br>
Department of Bioinformatics and Genetics,<br>
Swedish Museum of Natural History,<br>
P.O. Box 50007,<br>
SE–104 05 Stockholm,<br>
Sweden<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Op 6-2-2018 om 21:09 schreef Cantino,
Philip:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EBE5BF01-9B2D-490E-B1E4-BCD601676A6B@ohio.edu">
<pre wrap="">Dear CPN members,
Having now updated the CPN listserv membership, I am sending material for your consideration. As many of you are aware, the PhyloCode articles on what constitutes publication need to be revised to address electronic publication. I think the CPN was in general agreement on this point several years ago, but the details remained to be worked out. Over the past several months, Nico Cellinese and Dick Olmstead drafted a set of revisions to the current rules. Kevin and I then reviewed them, leading to further discussion among the four of us. The result is attached (“proposed publication requirements”).
Three other documents are also attached: “current publication requirements” (as they exist in PhyloCode version 5); “publication requirements with changes tracked”; and the full PhyloCode 5, in case some of you don’t have a copy on your computer. As you will see from the document with the tracked changes, most are in Article 4, but a few related changes are proposed in Articles 5 and 7.
I want to be sure that this message was received by the four new members (Jim Doyle, Micah Dunthorn, Sean Graham, and Max Cardoso Langer) and the two continuing members whose email addresses I just updated on the listserv (Michel Laurin and Dick Olmstead). Therefore, I’d appreciate it if the six of you would email me to confirm that you received this.
Let’s give everyone the rest of the week to read the proposed changes before we start discussing them. Although the revised text is not long, everyone is busy and I realize some of you may not have time to focus on this right away. I will be back in touch on Monday to ask for comments.
The address when emailing this listserv is <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>.
Best regards,
Phil
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<span class="st"></span>Dear CPN members,<br>
<br>
I have made a few comments on the proposed PhyloCode articles on
what constitutes publication (see attached).<br>
<br>
I see two problems:<br>
<br>
Note 4.2.1. How do we deal with potential violations of the rule
that papers must be peer reviewed? Must there be *evidence* that a
journal (or paper) is peer-reviewed? In other words, is *lack of
evidence* for peer-review sufficient reason to consider a name
unavailable? How can we tell if a paper was not peer-reviewed? (no
journal will state this in print)<br>
<br>
Art. 4.5 and 5.1. "An electronic publication must not be altered
after it is published" and the publication date is when it "first
becomes available either in print or online".<br>
These rules seem to accept online pre-publications (pdfs), which may
be (i) an accepted (but unedited) manuscript, (ii) uncorrected
proofs, or (iii) corrected proofs (version of record). Any of these
could be regarded as 'the 'first published version' of the
manuscript, depending on which versions are published. Some journals
publish all these before the final paginated version appears online.
Art. 4.5 in its present form would suggest that a published
manuscript version could be the ‘correct’ one (because it’s
published first), and that the version of record and final version
are just ‘corrections’ or ‘revisions’. Clearly, this is not
desirable.<br>
<br>
I am attaching three papers on this subject, which I hope helps us
make up our minds on this matter.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
George<br>
<br>
Dr George Sangster<br>
Department of Bioinformatics and Genetics,<br>
Swedish Museum of Natural History,<br>
P.O. Box 50007,<br>
SE–104 05 Stockholm,<br>
Sweden<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Op 6-2-2018 om 21:09 schreef Cantino,
Philip:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EBE5BF01-9B2D-490E-B1E4-BCD601676A6B@ohio.edu">
<pre wrap="">Dear CPN members,
Having now updated the CPN listserv membership, I am sending material for your consideration. As many of you are aware, the PhyloCode articles on what constitutes publication need to be revised to address electronic publication. I think the CPN was in general agreement on this point several years ago, but the details remained to be worked out. Over the past several months, Nico Cellinese and Dick Olmstead drafted a set of revisions to the current rules. Kevin and I then reviewed them, leading to further discussion among the four of us. The result is attached (“proposed publication requirements”).
Three other documents are also attached: “current publication requirements” (as they exist in PhyloCode version 5); “publication requirements with changes tracked”; and the full PhyloCode 5, in case some of you don’t have a copy on your computer. As you will see from the document with the tracked changes, most are in Article 4, but a few related changes are proposed in Articles 5 and 7.
I want to be sure that this message was received by the four new members (Jim Doyle, Micah Dunthorn, Sean Graham, and Max Cardoso Langer) and the two continuing members whose email addresses I just updated on the listserv (Michel Laurin and Dick Olmstead). Therefore, I’d appreciate it if the six of you would email me to confirm that you received this.
Let’s give everyone the rest of the week to read the proposed changes before we start discussing them. Although the revised text is not long, everyone is busy and I realize some of you may not have time to focus on this right away. I will be back in touch on Monday to ask for comments.
The address when emailing this listserv is <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cpn@listserv.ohio.edu">cpn@listserv.ohio.edu</a>.
Best regards,
Phil
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CPN@listserv.ohio.edu">CPN@listserv.ohio.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn">http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>