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

Re: Publication Validity (was: Re: Cretaceous Wars - The Revenge of the Rat...uh...I mean Mammal)

I think the usage comes from how the journals handle the matter.

Paleontology lists the paper as "Early View (Articles online in advance of 

The Elsevier journals on Science Direct call them "Articles in Press" and 
explain "Articles in Press are accepted, peer reviewed articles that are not 
yet assigned to an issue, but are citable using DOI." At least some of the 
journals on Science Direct (e.g., Paleo3) will post accepted manuscripts and 
corrected proofs of the paper before publication. 

It's not an ICZN stranglehold; it's the journal publishers still thinking that 
print is the definitive edition. In the case of accepted manuscripts, that may 
be true, because the editors may question some wording or the authors may 
correct mistakes they catch. 

What this practice implies for nomenclature is a separate issue, which I will 
defer to people who understand such things better than I do. 

At 9:45 AM -0600 6/26/10, Harris, Jerald wrote:
>>At this point, I would cite it as "in press" and (if the journal allows)
>include the DOI.
>    Maybe someone(s) here can help me understand this: here and in various 
> blogs, I've noticed that people still seem to think that an electronic 
> pre-print version of a paper is "in press" rather than published.  Why?!?  
> The publishers of these types of things consider the electronic versions 
> published just as much as the hard-copy versions (and the DOI really helps 
> with that).  For the most part (see below), people don't seem to have any 
> problem considering papers in, say, _Palaeontologia Electronica_ or the 
> _PLoS_ journals as published; why should the electronic pre-prints be any 
> different?  After all, in content it is absolutely identical to the later 
> hard-copy version except that the latter has a volume number and page numbers 
> on it.  What magical ability do these numbers confer on a paper (especially 
> considering that some hard-copy journals don't even use page numbers 
> anymore)?  Isn't it the _content_ of the paper that's important?  (And that's 
> what the DOI points to.)
>     Is this all symptomatic of some sort of ICZN stranglehold?  That is, I 
> know that the electronic pre-prints are considered by most as invalid under 
> ICZN rules for purposes of zoological nomenclature...but what about papers 
> that do not contain any nomenclatural acts?  Are those considered invalid 
> just because ones that contain nomenclatural acts are considered invalid -- 
> that is, is this just people generalizing things?
>    Anyway, despite admonitions from people here that the citation of the 
> paper in question in this thread should be:
>Longrich N.R. & Ryan M.J. In press. Mammalian tooth marks on the bones of 
>dinosaurs and other Late Cretaceous vertebrates. Palaeontology.
>...I think it should be:
>Longrich N.R. & Ryan M.J. 2010. Mammalian tooth marks on the bones of 
>dinosaurs and other Late Cretaceous vertebrates. Palaeontology. DOI: 
>For what are probably obvious reasons, I remain curious why people think 
>otherwise, especially considering that this paper does not contain any 
>nomenclatural acts...

Jeff Hecht, science & technology writer
jeff@jeffhecht.com or jhecht@nasw.org
Boston Correspondent: New Scientist magazine
525 Auburn St., Auburndale, MA 02466 USA
tel. 617-965-3834  http://www.jeffhecht.com