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

Re: Publication Validity and Quality



As Ralph wrote, we need something that defines a publication for the purposes of making the taxonomic and nomenclatorial actions within it valid. ISBN numbers are just for a publication, regardless of content. We need something for this specific scientific issue. Gay's work has an ISBN number, but that doesn't make it valid for the nomenclatorial actions in it.

Dan



T. Michael Keesey wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Harris, Jerald <jharris@dixie.edu> wrote:
* who should (or will) define what is and is not a "publication" for the purposes of 
taxonomic validity?  The ICZN?  The PhyloCode?  A third, entirely separate committee?  The ICZN, as 
others have noted, is either wholly intractable and stolid, or else it moves in a tectonic time 
frame and is therefore useless in light of the rapid pace of technological change. I don't know 
nearly enough about the PhyloCode to comment on its ability, but have to wonder whether or not the 
idea of a publication is too different from its primary mandate to need to fall under its purview.  
A third organization -- the International Commission on Publication Validation or somesuch...?  Who 
would be on that commission -- taxonomists, obviously, but should publishers have representation, 
too?  Who would choose these people?  Of course, even if such a body existed and had a set of 
definition, how would it be enforced?  Or labeled (e.g., a "stamp of approval")?

Well, the ISO already does this, issuing ISSN and ISBN numbers. So one
possibility would be to say it's a publication if it has an ISBN or
ISSN number, at least after a certain date.