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

RE: Is *Duriasaurus* published? was Re: Andesaurus redescribed



David Marjanovic opined (again):

<If -- if! -- this is the only way you can get the paper, it is not validly 
published.>

  I might agree on the premise argued above, but how this applies to the paper 
in question, I do not know. The ICZN has permitted low-circulation newletters 
and even personally-published works hand-distributed and not printed since to 
be considered valid for publishing. Low circulation (by contrast to high-end 
publishers, still in the hundreds) in various museum or university publications 
still receive a broad _enough_ audience to be available.

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:11:40 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Is *Duriasaurus* published? was Re: Andesaurus redescribed
>
>
> > David Marjanovic opined:
> >
> > 
> >
> > I understand this is almost certainly intended to be a narrow 
> > interpretation, but there are alternatives: the authors have prepare pdf 
> > copies of this and distribute them, if the publisher allows, and they may 
> > receive print copies to distribute as well (re-prints) which are typically 
> > gratis of the publisher. Because abstract data almost always comes with 
> > author attributions, and those in turn almost always with contact 
> > information, emailing the authors for a polite request will affirm whether 
> > a physical or digital copy can be obtained free of charge. This permits the 
> > publication to also be available free of charge, rather than ONLY through 
> > subscriptions or access to particularly lucky libraries, or being close to 
> > the publisher's office, etc.
>
> If -- if! -- this is the only way you can get the paper, it is not
> validly published. I repeat:
>
> >>> Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the 
> >>> provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work 
> >>> within the meaning of the Code:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>> 9.7. copies obtained on demand of an unpublished work (Art. 8), even if 
> >>> previously deposited in a library or other archive;
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> Note Art. 9.7: reprints distributed by the authors _*DO NOT COUNT!*_ 
> >> However, this appears to be irrelevant in the present case, because the 
> >> paper is published according to Art. 8, assuming that Art. 8.1.2 allows 
> >> its being available only to members and libraries.
> >>
> >> Also relevant:
> >>
> >>> 21.8. Advance distribution of separates and preprints. Before 2000, an 
> >>> author who distributed separates in advance of the specified date of 
> >>> publication of the work in which the material is published thereby 
> >>> advanced the date of publication. The advance issue of separates after 
> >>> 1999 does not do so, whereas preprints, clearly imprinted with their own 
> >>> date of publication, may be published works from the date of their issue 
> >>> (see Glossary: "separate", "preprint").
> >> "Preprint":
> >>
> >>> A work published, with its own specified date of publication (imprint 
> >>> date), in advance of its later reissue as part of a collective or 
> >>> cumulative work. Preprints may be published works for the purposes of 
> >>> zoological nomenclature. See separate.
> >> "Separate":
> >>
> >>> A copy (reprint or offprint) of a work contained in a periodical, book or 
> >>> other larger work, intended for distribution (usually privately by the 
> >>> author(s)) detached from the larger work which contains it but
> >>> without its own specified date of publication (imprint date). The advance 
> >>> distribution of separates after 1999 does not constitute publication for 
> >>> purposes of zoological nomenclature. See preprint.
> >> So, as Art. 9.7 already says: if only reprints are available, the paper 
> >> isn't published.
>
> I think it is a completely absurd situation that many papers that are
> extremely hard to get count as validly published while some that are
> extremely easy to get -- for instance by asking the authors for a pdf --
> do not count. But the Code doesn't (currently) care.
>
> I bet there's a library or several that carries the Proceedings. If so,
> the name *Duriatitan* is probably valid -- assuming that "you have to go
> to one of a few libraries in England" counts as "obtainable, when first
> issued, free of charge or bypurchase". (Whether it does is impossible to
> find out without actually asking the Committee; but it's likely, and I
> don't want to write a Bull. Zool. Nom. article right now.) So, does
> somebody here know if there's such a library?
>
> If there isn't, the question is whether "you have to become a member of
> the society" counts as "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or
> bypurchase". And if it doesn't, *Duriatitan* is not validly published,
> even though everybody and their blasted brother can read the everloving
> paper.
>
> And at the same time, peer review is not required! It's all so absurd!
>
> And as usual the Code complicates the question further by not explaining
> what "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or bypurchase" even
> means!