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

Re: New publication: Notes on Early Mesozoic Theropods by Robert Gay



lulu.com gives institutions an excellent option for on demand printing
services for publications to be made available to the public and the
scientific community.  For example, print versions of the SVP abstract
volume from the Bristol meeting are available for sale through the
sight and has allowed the SVP an easy way to offer print versions
without having to print large numbers up before hand and then store
the unsold copies.  These type of venues are perfect for this because
copies are printed on order and shipped direcly by the printer to the
purchaser.  The downside is that anyone who can turn a written
document into a PDF can "publish" using this venue.  No other criteria
are required.

Thus, the problem is not the printing venue itself, but whether
individual papers are offered by authors looking to get fast, simple
publication having circumvented peer review.  I'm afraid this appears
to the case with the recent offering by Rob Gay (having purchased an
electronic copy).  Rob's previous message is quite passionate about
how he feels he did not circumvent the system, and that his papers
were "accepted" by "popular" journals; however, we really have no way
of determining this do we?  Final publication in a peer review journal
means that all aspects of review, including revisions, were met to the
satisfaction of the editors.  This is not clear in this case.  I have
to agree 100% with Dan.  IMHO this paper has not met the standards of
peer review simply because the reviews are dated and should have been
resubmitted to a journal for re-review and publication.  Especially
because a new taxonomic name is proposed, anything less is simply
unresponsible.  Yes, peer review is time-consuming and thus
"inconvenient" and sometimes manuscripts and figures are lost, or
revisions take time to make, but this is true for all researchers and
not grounds to pull out of the system and self-publish.
Unfortunately, this type of action can only hurt the viability of
printing through lulu.com in the eyes of the paleontological
community.  lulu.com is a printing service NOT a scientific journal.

 I'm also hoping that Rob will gladly provide copies of his PDF to
interested parties for free if they contact him rather than requiring
everyone to purchase the article through the website if copyright and
not profit are his main goals.

Bill

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> Thanks for providing the explanations of what transpired.  My posts are
> about nomenclatorial acts so the Kayentavenator paper is relevant to my
> concern. Not so the Coelophysis paper. That's why I didn't discuss the
> latter.  And since this is a concern about the venues for creating creating
> taxa I did not discuss the content of the paper. Whether or no
> Kayentavenator is a distinct taxon of theropod is different matter.
>
> Frankly, my general concern about Lulu and other such self publishing venues
> is that any restraints on nomenclature will disappear and taxa will be
> created willy nilly. Anyone, regardless of knowledge and abilities, will be
> able to create valid taxa without any restraints. I believe most people see
> that as a serious problem. I agree with Tom Williams that  the
> self-publication can of worms that should be shut down by  ICZN.  If
>  PhyloCode will require that all valid nomenclatorial acts be peer-reviewed
> , then that is a very big plus for that system.
>
> As for your specific history regarding publication, I appreciate how life
> can complicate matters.  I once had a similar situation in which too much
> time had passed after review for publication. So its being reworked for
> submittal elsewhere. In my opinion, you should have resubmitted it as new
> manuscript, including the revisions, explained the situation, and see what
> the journal response was, rather than just assuming it would be rude.
> Submitting it to another journal would be the second choice.  Having gone
> through peer review it should have been a stronger manuscript and thus have
> a better chance of acceptance. As Tim Williams wrote, this "would make
> Kayentavenator iron-clad from a nomenclatural perspective."
> Dan
>
>
> Rob Gay wrote:
>>
>> It was my oversight that I did not list the repositories as "5 major
>> publicly accessible libraries" but the institutions named in both the
>> _Kayentavenator_ paper and the _Coelophysis_ paper have been sent copies of
>> the volume - UCMP, MNA, NMMNH, Ruth Hall Museum of Paleontology at Ghost
>> Ranch, and AMNH. ICZN 8.6 does not state that the institutions have to be
>> explicitly stated as major repositories. It just says that the works have to
>> be deposited in major libraries, and that the institutions are identified by
>> name. I probably could have worded that better in the introduction and
>> explicitly stated "these are the permanent repositories that have copies
>> deposited at their locations: X, Y, and Z." I didn't - but I did state that
>> the works were on record at the "relevant institutions" and in the papers I
>> name the relevant institutions by their full names. Furthermore, it appears
>> to me that 8.6 only applies if this was solely a digital document. Notes of
>> Mesozoic Theropods is a physical paper document. You can download copies,
>> but the method of printing employs printing on paper. And anyway, like I
>> said, the works have been deposited anyway. Glancing at the closest
>> post-1999 paper to me, the Colbert and Olsen _Hypuronector_ paper from 2001,
>> I note that nowhere in their publication does it list 5 institutions, and
>> does not mention that a copy of their paper has been deposited anywhere.
>> I think that this is attracting attention because these papers weren't
>> published in the popular journals. That doesn't meant that they weren't
>> peer-reviewed. The _Coelophysis_ paper was accepted for publication in a
>> volume, but the editor lost the figures right before publication. The
>> _Kayentavenator_ paper was submitted to JVP and returned with revisions.
>> Both events (loss of figures and returning of revisions) occurred when I had
>> a sudden change in my job situation and basically had no access to a
>> computer for three years. I felt it would not be reasonable to expect, after
>> three years, an addendum to come out with my _Coelophysis_ paper, and
>> returning revisions to reviewers after three years of hearing nothing from
>> me struck me as rude. The _Coelophysis_ paper, having already been accepted,
>> was published here in its as-accepted form. I took the reviewers' comments
>> for the _Kayentavenator_ paper and incorporated them into the final version.
>> Due to the unusual set of circumstances that had developed during that time
>> in my life, I felt that this was the best way to proceed with these two
>> papers. Is this something that I plan on doing in the future? No. Not at
>> all. That's because I'm not going to have a couple peer-reviewed but
>> unpublished papers sitting around in my files. But is ICZN 8.1.1 met? Yes.
>> The whole idea is to provide a public, permanent record. Is ICZN 8.1.2 met?
>> Yes. Anyone can get a copy. If people want PDFs of the individual papers and
>> don't want the whole volume, they can e-mail me even. But even if I was
>> dead, people could still get copies of the papers. Is ICZN 8.1.3 met? Yes.
>> Numerous durable and identical copies have already been produced and sent to
>> the relevant institutions, and more can be had by anyone - copies can be
>> produced forever, for all practical purposes. That strikes me as numerous,
>> and the paper copies are certainly durable. Downloads can be durable too, if
>> the storage media is properly cared for. Is ICZN 8.6 met? Doesn't matter,
>> since it is a paper printing, but even if you think that a physical book is
>> not a paper copy, as I mentioned above, 8.6 is still met.
>>
>> Dan is rightly concerned about people making an end run around peer review
>> (while I was writing the above) and seems to imply that my papers were trash
>> and rejected, but I went ahead and published them anyway in order to pull a
>> fast one on everyone. Once again, I suggest going over what I just wrote.
>> The _Kayentavenator_ paper was sent back to me with revisions. I included
>> those revisions in the final published paper. Just like every other thing
>> that I have published, both papers were peer reviewed. Although I have been
>> quite on the list for some time (in fact, I was unsubscribed for a while,
>> due to the lack of computer access I mention above), I'd like to remind
>> people that this isn't the first thing I've written - I know how peer review
>> works, I know how the publication process works. This just happens to be the
>> only time anything was (or will ever be) not published by an outside
>> publisher.
>>
>> Dan also wrote:
>> >I'm not sure why this is would not be considered an electronic
>> > publication. You can order it as a pdf or print copy in any one of several
>> > page sizes (8x10, 6x9). Self publishing pay for print on demand seems to me
>> > to be an electronic activity.<
>> Well, all publication activity is really electronic these days. When is
>> the last time you typed something on a typewriter to submit it, got the
>> reviews back, had to retype the whole thing on your typewriter, and the
>> final volume was printed with movable-block print and not an electronic
>> printer? Saying that you can order it online makes it an electronic activity
>> would make anything available on Amazon primarily an electronic activity.
>> The primary mode of publication is a physical book on paper. I dunno, maybe
>> getting rid of the download option would make that more obvious?
>>
>> Tim Williams mentions (while I was typing all of the above - I guess this
>> is all pretty interesting for people!) that self-publishing is a can of
>> worms. He wrote:
>> >However, returning to Kayentavenator, if somebody attaches a different
>> > name to the same type specimen, and Rob Gay asserts his name to be valid,
>> > then it will be an issue for the ICZN to decide. Until then, it will be up
>> > to paleontologists to decide for themselves whether or not to acknowledge
>> > Kayentavenator as a valid genus.<
>> How would it not be valid, since all the ICZN rules have been met? Now if
>> my work was junk and it turned out the material was nondiagnostic (which I
>> obviously disagree with), then maybe, but the ICZN rules have been met, and
>> as long as someone doesn't make it a junior synonym of something else I
>> don't see how it could be considered anything other than valid. The ICZN
>> rules might be imperfect, but they are what they are and the rules have been
>> met.
>>
>> I'll say this again, clearly, with no ambiguity. My intention was not to
>> end-run science. The papers were peer reviewed. The ICZN rules were met. I
>> felt this was the best way, with today's changing technology, to get this
>> research out there quickly to help create a publicly accessible record and
>> expand the body of knowledge of early North American theropods. If you think
>> my conclusions suck, that's fine, we can debate that - since the data is now
>> out there, you (the collective You) can look at my data, my analysis, and my
>> conclusions and draw your own. Why was my introduction so brief (and some
>> said ambiguous?) in the volume? Because I didn't want to have 5 pages of
>> introduction to a short volume. I could have typed up everything I just did
>> here and put that in front of the papers, but I had assumed that one page
>> would answer questions and set people at ease. Obviously I missed that
>> guess.
>>
>> Anyone want to talk about the papers themselves? Or since it was published
>> by Lulu they shouldn't be looked at except as kindling?
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> mhanson54@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>> According to the ICZN:
>>> 8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
>>> 8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and
>>> permanent scientific record,
>>> 8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by
>>> purchase, and
>>> 8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously
>>> obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable
>>> copies.
>>> 8.6. Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing
>>> on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on
>>> paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must
>>> contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have
>>> been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are
>>> identified by name in the work itself.
>>>
>>> From Gay, R. 2010.
>>> "Those that are concerned about the naming of a new genus in this format
>>> should not be. The availability and distribution requirements are more than
>>> met—the relevant institutions have received a copy for their records. In
>>> addition "Notes on Early Mesozoic Theropods" will remain available to all
>>> who wish to purchase it online, as well as those stores that chose to carry
>>> it, for the foreseeable future—far surpassing the availability of many other
>>> high profile publications to those anywhere on the globe."
>>>
>>> According to this 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.3 are all fulfilled. The only
>>> criterion not fulfilled is 8.6, and its due to a very minor technicality;
>>> nowhere in this work are the "5 major publicly accessible libraries" where
>>> the hard copies are deposited named. I don't think that on-demand self
>>> publishing necessarily violates 8.1.3, on some contitions it might be, but a
>>> publication service such as Lulu ensures that multiple individuals can order
>>> and obtain "numerous identical and durable copies" at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/6/10 18:49, Dan Chure wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have checked the website and Lulu clearly describes itself as a "Self
>>>> Publishing" business and one that publishes on demand. So it would appear
>>>> that Kayentavenatoir is not a valid taxon.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> Brad McFeeters wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if Rob is a member of this list, but the book seems to
>>>>> have been published for a few days now, so I'll go ahead and share this.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lulu.com/product/item/notes-on-early-mesozoic-theropods/11028233
>>>>> (download)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lulu.com/product/item/notes-on-early-mesozoic-theropods/11028232
>>>>> (book)
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: Notes on Early Mesozoic Theropods contains two papers on the
>>>>> poorly studied late Triassic and early Jurassic theropod dinosaur fauna of
>>>>> North America.
>>>>> The author discusses the evidence that has been used to support
>>>>> cannibalism hypothesis in the late Triassic dinosaur Coelophysis, and
>>>>> presents new evidence that disproves this commonly cited hypothesis.
>>>>> In the second paper, the author names a new genus and species of
>>>>> theropod dinosaur from the early Jurassic Kayenta Formation of Arizona. 
>>>>> The
>>>>> new taxon represents the oldest yet-known example of a Tetanuran theropod 
>>>>> in
>>>>> North America.
>>>>> For those interested in the paleontological history of the American
>>>>> southwest or the early evolutionary history of this interesting clade of
>>>>> dinosaurs, Notes on Early Mesozoic Theropods adds more information to
>>>>> the emerging picture of life in the southwest over 190 million years ago.
>>>>> The new theropod is named _Kayentavenator elysiae_.
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Look 'em in the eye: FREE Messenger video chat
>>>>> http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9734386
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>