[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.
T. Michael Keesey wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Harris, Jerald <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.