[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Single origin for venoms of Toxicofera: now officially published



David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<Well, the version in today's Nature has volume and page numbers, while the
"online advance publication" did not, so it looks like Nature prefers
yesterday's version.>

  I still think this is missing my point. But then, it has a slight touch-on
involved. If this paper were an issue of taxonomy as it was on the article I
mentioned below, or had this been the taxonomy paper, there would most
certainly be an issue with volume, issue, and pagination issues. This occurs
whenever papers issued without pagination are subsequently published with
pagination. However, given it's early dating, what should be refer to? More
pointedly, even though _Nature_ issued pagination, how can we even consider
which is "preferred"? Not that I think preference of which release is
important, but the online version was released LAST YEAR, it certainly wasn't
postdated to a 2006 release but "slipped" onto _Nature_'s own site
"accidentally." This was an intentional release, and for a journal considerate
of embargoes and pres-releases, as is _Science_, one would think the date of a
paper's release be the OFFICIAL one, and coincide with releases in other venues
on the topic, as occured with the Human Genome Project. This appears to have
NOT happened here. Perhaps they were aware of a release of other data that
would have conflicted with this data had it been published first, and thus
slipped it out to create a priority of publication? If so, they DO care about
the release date, and it surely wasn't the paper version, or they'd never
release it online months before printing. This issue becomes more worrisome and
inflated when taxonomy is involved, as I attempted to tie-in three times now.

<To me it was obvious that "they" were Nature.>

  I mentioned this after referring to other journals, and research stemming
from a find released in another journal, so while conflicting perhaps, I see
where such confusion would arise. I shall attempt some greater clarity in
separating my premises more obviously.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com