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

Re: Pickering's nomina nuda (was RE: Rob Gay's print-on-demand publication of Kayentavenator elysiae

"I thought this thread (Pickering's nomina nuda) was about the need for action to prevent 
"rogue taxonomists" like Pickering from publishing in venues like Lulu that could be seen 
as ICZN compliant."

For me its not about Pickering or "rogue taxonomists" (whatever that may mean) as a larger group. The problem is ANYONE using self publishing whether amateur or seasoned gray hair. The core problem with self publishing is that removes any possibility that a review of the manuscript might show it so bad that its publication will be prohibited unless, at the very least, major revisions are done. With self publishing you can literally do whatever you want. I see a need for action to prohibit self publishing as an ICZN compliant venue across the board. I know peer review (whether for a journal or book) is not an issue for the ICZN but it seems critical to me to prevent, in the present state of things, an avalanche of names of no value. Self-publishing seems to fail to meet other code requirements. Dan

Michael Mortimer wrote:
Thomas Holtz wrote-
Here's the news, though. Science is a process. It takes time. Longer timethan 
fanboys (and professionals) would like sometimes, but timenonetheless. Get the 
frak over it. Deal.
Of course good science takes time. Ideally, we would have as much time as we need to get papers naming new taxa prepared and published. I was just saying that the threat of easy publication might force us to change IF we care that much about what the things are named. Perhaps authors could write a quick note naming the taxon, providing a diagnosis and such to make it ICZN compliant, then doing the real science later. Sort of like a Nature or Science paper, I suppose. But then again, people complain (with good cause) about that kind of paper. Again though, I'm not saying these are preferable or even good solutions, but they may be the kinds of things that are necessary if professionals want to retain the right to name their taxa. Gregory Paul wrote-

<< Paul's Dinosaurs of the Air is quite high quality>>

Why am I being dragged into this? DA is a peer reviewed University Press
book that made no genus-species taxonomic conclusions.
I never meant to imply it wasn't peer reviewed or that you technically published it yourself. After all, Gay's paper was also peer reviewed and published by a separate company. I just intended it as an example of a quality work that wasn't published in a traditional journal. We can use PDW as an example if you prefer, since you did quite a bit of nomenclatural work there. And really, this emphasizes that what people in this thread care about is not SELF publication (since Gay has no ownership of Lulu), but rather publication that the community is powerless to prevent. And that applies to books as much as Gay's or Olshevsky's works. Jaime Headden wrote-
Madsen and Welles wrote most of their paper together, prepared from an unfinished 
manuscript Welles had initially prepared. Welles passed way during this process, leaving 
Madsen to finish it. Madsen did not receive the same manuscript in the same manner as 
Pickering, and then just add his own flare to it. There is a substantive amount of 
writing in Madsen and Welles that shows development (and knowledge) of the work that came 
after Welles' original manuscript, based on Pickering's assertions that he edited and 
annotated what was Welles' work, then cut it into his pieces as "previews" and 
the actual work shown therein. This indicates that there are substantial differences in 
the effort Madsen took versus Pickering, as their situations (including handling of 
Welles' work) are entirely different.
But how do you know that? I certainly don't want to be seen as taking Pickering's side, but almost the entire paper reads like Welles' works (e.g. Dilophosaurus) and not Madsen's (e.g. Allosaurus, Marshosaurus). There are no references covering the time after Welles' death, and the (extremely short) systematics section contains things that would never be seen in a paper from 2000, such as putting Proceratosaurus in Ceratosauridae and using the name Podokesauridae. Finally, Jaime Headden wrote-
That Pickering presented his material to parties he was agreeable to, but 
without deposition in readily accessible public facilities, it is virtually 
impossible to attain a copy of this without 1) asking someone else who has it 
or 2) asking Pickering [impossible if he hates you]. This is not how publicly 
available (and ICZN-mandated) works should be handled; this (and this alone) is 
what disqualifies Pickering's self-publication as ICZN-incompatible.
And Dan Chure wrote-
I think the core issue is whether or not they meet publication requirements for 
being valid.
We're arguing different issues then. I thought this thread (Pickering's nomina nuda) was about the need for action to prevent "rogue taxonomists" like Pickering from publishing in venues like Lulu that could be seen as ICZN compliant. Not about whether Lulu is ICZN compliant or what the status of Pickering's previously distributed papers is. Mickey Mortimer _________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your