General
Articles and Nomenclatural Notes with
the following titles were published on
30 September 2004 in Volume 61, Part
3 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
Copies
of these General Articles and Nomenclatural
Notes can be obtained free of charge from
the Executive Secretary, The International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
General
Article (see Comments)
‘Published
Works’
in the electronic age: recommended amendments
to Articles 8 and 9 of the Code
Jerald D. Harris
Department of Earth and Environmental
Science, University of Pennsylvania, 240
South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316,
U.S.A. (e-mail: jdharris@sas.upenn.edu)
Introduction: electronic
documents and scientific publishing
The advent of the Internet has brought about one of the most substantial
revolutions in publishing since the invention of the printing press circa 1450
A.D. Internet (primarily World-Wide Web, or WWW) distribution of manuscripts
has enabled an unprecedented degree of ease and freedom to the palimpsest of
the traditional publication process. Prior to widespread availability of, and
access to, electronic publications, authors of virtually any type of document
intended for widespread distribution were required to first find a publisher,
and then undergo multiple reviews by editors before a final product could be
produced. Distribution was then left entirely to the publisher. Alterations
to finished products generally meant beginning the process over again and the
issue of sequentially numbered editions. Publishing houses, with finite resources
and funding, had to be highly selective of what would and would not be published
from a plethora of submissions, and preference was generally given to manuscripts
of particular importance, timeliness, or (in reality) marketability and promise
of profit. Hence, not everything was published.
With the advent of the Internet, many aspects of this process could be
avoided. Widely available WWW-authoring software allowed authors to finalize
manuscripts themselves, and ubiquitous web servers allow them to place their
documents in a position of instantaneous and virtually universal distribution
to readers. Thus, the author also became the publisher, printer, and distributor.
Subsequent additions, corrections, and other editing could be done as and when
necessary so an electronic document could be continually up-to-date. A reader
has only to log in to see the latest version, though ideally new editions should
be cited as such.
From the perspective of the scientist, electronic publishing and the
Internet are not necessarily beneficent. The processes of peer-review and editing
a manuscript are integral parts of scientific publishing. Prior to the Internet,
it was extremely difficult for a non-scientist to publish the results of research
in the formal, scientific literature (‘primary sources’) largely
because of this reviewing and editing process. Today, in contrast, anyone can
publish literally anything (‘secondary sources’), either or both
in print and, especially, on-line, regardless of its scientific quality or
whether or not it has undergone peer-review. This is particularly troublesome
for biologists and systematists because there is currently no universally recognized
means of labeling what information has been peer-reviewed and thus invested
with the
‘official’ approval of the scientific
community. Scientists are fundamentally educators,
whether educating other scientists or the
general public, and it is the public in particular
that is usually unable to distinguish between
valid (primary) and questionable (secondary)
scientific information sources on the WWW.
Teachers and librarians often spend a great
deal of time teaching students how to differentiate
primary and secondary sources. The public
(including neophyte biologists) may thus
be easily misinformed. This is a significant
problem that continues to be addressed on
many levels in the scientific and educational
communities. Because of this, WWW sites,
even if they contain valid scientific information,
are rarely cited in the bibliographies of
scientific papers and are generally viewed
with some suspicion by scientists.
However, it must also be emphasized that the Internet carries a substantial
boon to the scientific community (Godfray, 2002). Numerous WWW-based taxonomic
initiatives already exist (see review in Mallet & Willmott, 2003), and
it is becoming more widely recognized that electronic access to and dissemination
of information will be critical to a more complete assessment of biodiversity
(Wilson, 2003). There is, however, a more important and immediate benefit:
specifically, the easy, instantaneous, widespread distribution of formal, peer-reviewed,
scientific documents. The debate, as it presently stands, is ‘Which is
more powerful: the negative ability of the Internet to mass-produce fallacious,
unfounded, and uncitable information, or its positive capacity to easily disseminate
truly valuable scientific documents?’
Electronic publishing
and the Code
Although most biologists are not systematists (Garrity &
Lyons, 2003), the act of naming new taxa
remains a fairly common occurrence and is
still a fundamental process. It must be emphasized
that the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature does not concern itself with
matters of quality (peer-review), only with
the rules of establishing new, or emending
existing, names. As a result, there is no
real difference in content between a nomenclatural
action that appears in a manuscript in a
non-peer-reviewed journal, a non-peer reviewed
document that is self-published in a print
medium (e.g. Olshevsky, 1991, an often cited
palaeontological example) or an electronic
document. (It should be noted that many electronic
documents, particularly on-line versions
of established journals, are peer-reviewed).
However, because of the wide (and ever-growing)
availability of Internet access and because
of the establishment of a system for universal
citability of on-line documents, Articles
8 (‘What constitutes published work’)
and 9 (‘What does not constitute published
work’) of the Code now contain a paradox
that is more a response to one potentially
harmful aspect of the Internet (lack of consistent
citability) than an acknowledgement and acceptance
of its greatest power (facilitating rapid
and broad-scale distribution of systematic
documents). Article 8 states that a published
work must be (a) issued for the purpose of
providing a public and permanent scientific
record, (b) obtainable free or by purchase,
and (c) produced in an edition containing
simultaneously obtainable copies by a method
that assures numerous identical and durable
copies (emphasis here by the current author).
Article 9 specifies numerous qualifications
to Article 8 rules and outlines specific
things that do not constitute a ‘published
work’; of particular interest here
is Article 9.8, which specifies that ‘text
or illustrations distributed by means of
electronic signals (e.g. by means of the
World Wide Web)’, does not constitute
a ‘published work’.
These rules were not, of course, created
on a whim - there are sound, logical reasons
behind them. A ‘public and permanent’
scientific record lies at the heart of scientific
publishing, both for the education of the
scientific community and public as well as
for providing access to literature by future
generations. ‘Numerous identical and
durable copies’ again addresses the
concept of long-term preservation for future
generations. Distribution ‘by means
of the World Wide Web’ was undoubtedly
singled out as an unacceptable means of taxonomic
publishing for reasons of (1) long-term preservation,
(2) accessibility, and (3) citability. The
aforementioned paradox in the current Code
is that none of these is any longer a substantial
impediment to achieving the goals of the
Code regarding zoological nomenclatural actions
with respect to electronic documents.
Electronic documents
and long-term preservation
In the electronic age, the concept of ‘long-term preservation’
of a document containing information pertinent
to zoological nomenclature must be viewed
from two standpoints: one in comparison to
hard-copy (i.e. print) preservation and one
of the inherent properties of the electronic
medium.
Numerous, widespread libraries, whose fundamental purpose is to preserve
information, largely in hard-copy (print) publications, for long-term use by
generations of readers, continually deal with random factors that act to destroy
such publications. These factors are numerous and range from internal paper
acidity to external factors such as climate, consumption by a variety of organisms,
etc. Frequently, important documents are reduced to ‘rare’ status,
viewable only by a select (usually local) few and only under special circumstances.
The Code has provisions dealing specifically with older (pre-1930) publications,
but in the broader sense, any ‘modern’
publication will, in the long-term, be subjected
to the same issues, and 100+ years from now,
they may be in similar physical situations
to what are currently considered ‘old’ publications.
Certainly, concern over issues of paper quality,
climate control, etc. have lessened as technology
has advanced, greatly improving the preservability
of many documents, but certainly not all:
numerous documents covered under the post-1930
provisions of the Code will suffer as have
many of their pre-1930 counterparts. In short,
a document’s existence in hard-copy
form is not a guarantee of either its accessibility
to the broadest possible range of the scientific
community or its continued existence through
time.
Electronic publications, while certainly
not as subject to the physical entropies
of paper quality, climate, etc., do indeed
suffer from preservational issues. There
is little disagreement that anything published
electronically must be archived in some format.
WWW addresses and accessibility have not
yet achieved the stability enjoyed by more
tangible institutions. The most important,
and readily visible, issue is the continual
change in preferred conservation media. Many
electronic documents of just a few decades
ago, preserved on such media as floppy disks
and other removable cartridges, though ‘preserved’,
are no longer accessible simply because the
technology required to view them is not widely
available. More recently, there has been
a shift to storage on compact discs (CDs)
and digital video discs (DVDs), as well as
newer types of proprietary removable cartridges
(e.g. flash drives, etc.), and there is a
general sense of permanence. However, given
the rate of technological change, there is
no way to determine whether or not, even
10 or 20 years from now, anyone will have
the ability to retrieve information from
these media. It is an expensive proposition
to continually update libraries of stored
electronic data to the currently favored
common medium, and few, if any, libraries
have the funds or willingness to accept such
responsibility. More worrying is the possibility,
however unlikely, of some global catastrophe
that disables electronic systems. In such
a case, even if the instruments exist to
read electronically-stored information, it
could not be activated. Hard-copy publications,
of course, do not suffer this particular
drawback.
One way to avoid this problem is the dissemination of both hard-copy
and electronic versions of a document. Provided these versions are identical
in every aspect (including citability), the information contained in the manuscript
is simultaneously widely available and preserved for long-term use. Printing
electronic manuscripts is already commonplace with individual zoologists; its
practice amongst archival institutions is unknown. Most electronic documents
do exist in numerous hard-copy editions. This is particularly true of scientific
journals that use the WWW to distribute papers contained in their issues while
also producing printed, hard-copy editions of the journal. The only new problem
created by this practice is one of timing (see below). In summary, electronic
documents really are not any more or less preservable than hard-copies; the
issues surrounding the means of preservation are simply different. But just
as preservation issues do not prevent the use of print media, they should also
not impede the publication of zoological nomenclatural actions in electronic
media as long as archival requirements are met.
Electronic documents
and accessibility
As before, issues of electronic document accessibility require comparison
with print-only versions. One frequently encountered reservation about electronic
documents and the WWW is that computer access is severely limited in many parts
of the world. Electronic documents are simply unavailable to many researchers.
While there can be no doubt of the truth of this fact, the argument is actually
false because hard-copy manuscripts can be, and often are, just as inaccessible
as (or even less accessible than) electronic media. This is particularly true
of publications by small, regional institutions and small-press or self-published
documents, both of which often suffer from severely restricted distributions.
A few avenues are available for obtaining such materials (e.g. InterLibrary
Loan programs) but, as noted above, some documents are too rare or too fragile
to be copied or lent. Occasionally, even locating a subscribing institution
proves impossible. In the end, some material simply cannot be accessed, regardless
of whether it is electronic or in print. If anything, electronic media have
an advantage over print in this respect; some programs (e.g. the United States
Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation
Program, http://www.digitalpreservation.gov, and the Million Books Project,
http://zeeb.library.cmu.edu/Libraries/LIT/Projects /1MBooks.html) are in place
to scan rare and fragile hard-copy manuscripts into an electronic form that
can be instantly transmitted or from which copies can be printed at leisure
without further need to access the original. Such copies can be easily lent,
sold, or given on request.
Electronic documents,
timing, citability, and the concept of ‘Publication’:
a case study
In 2002, an issue arose concerning
the name of a new fossil taxon that demands
a re-examination of the Code’s rules
concerning electronic documents. Zhang et
al. (2002) erected Epidendrosaurus ningchengensis based
on a specimen of a peculiar, small, theropod
dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian
Formation of Nei Mongol Province, China.
The paper defining and diagnosing the taxon
was initially released in the on-line version
of the respected journal Naturwissenschaften
on 21 August 2002. Because hard-copy publication
and distribution necessarily take more time
than electronic publication, the print version
of the same article (indeed the same issue
of the journal) did not appear until 30 September
2002 (D. Czeschlik, pers. comm., 2003).
At about the same time, Czerkas & Yuan (2002) erected Scansoriopteryx
heilmanni for a very similar specimen from the same formation in neighboring
Liaoning Province. S. heilmanni was published in the inaugural issue
of The Dinosaur Museum Journal of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding,
Utah, an auspicious publication that meets all the regulations of Article 8
of the Code. However, because it was distributed (largely by mail order) from
a single locale by a small institution, it unfortunately suffered a reduced
distribution compared with Naturwissenschaften. Although there has
been no formal, published (in any format) comparison of the two specimens to
determine whether or not they represent a single species, they bear certain
unusual, probably autapomorphic features that suggest that they do in fact
represent the same taxon. The question is: which name – Epidendrosaurus
ningchengensis or Scansoriopteryx heilmanni – is valid
for this taxon?
The volume in which the S. heilmanni paper appeared bears a
publication date of 1 August 2002, and by Article 21 of the Code, this should
be considered the ‘date of publication’
and obviously predates the 21 August appearance
of E. ningchengensis. The issue
of The Dinosaur Museum Journal appears,
however, not to have become widely available
(i.e. distributed or available for distribution
by purchase) until about 2 September 2002,
after the 21 August 2002 electronic Epidendrosaurus paper
but before the 30 September 2002 hard-copy
publication date. By strict letter of Article
21 of the Code, S. heilmanni should
have priority over E. ningchengensis.
However, while the Code goes to great lengths
to describe what constitutes both the date
of publication, and the criteria for publication,
of taxonomic names, it does not discuss what
is, in the ontological sense, a ‘publication’.
A ‘publication’, as inferred
from Article 8, can be defined as constituting
either (a) the first appearance in print
of a zoological taxon name that meets Article
8 specifications, regardless of whether or
not that printing is distributed, or (b)
the first actual, hard-copy release (distribution)
of the manuscript defining and diagnosing
the taxon that meets Article 8 specifications.
As the Epidendrosaurus/Scansoriopteryx case
highlights, there can be a substantial time
difference between ‘publication’
as a matter of the date a paper came off
the printing press, and
‘publication’ as a matter of
distribution to the public. The difference
is best illustrated by an extreme hypothetical
situation: a ‘publication’ (e.g.
the printing of hard copies) of a document
occurs on 1 January 2005, but then all copies
of the
‘publication’ are stored in a
warehouse, wholly inaccessible to anyone.
Distribution does not occur until a much
later point in time – let us say, 1
July 2008. In accordance with Article 21,
the date imprinted on the document (1 January
2005) is the date to be cited for the publication
and any nomenclatural actions therein, and
any competitive actions published after that
date are subject to synonymy. Ostensibly,
the document was printed with every intention
of being issued for the purpose of providing
a public and permanent scientific record
(satisfying Article 8.1.1) and in simultaneously
obtainable copies by a method that assured
numerous identical and durable copies (satisfying
Article 8.1.3) long before it is distributed.
But this is nullified by the requirement
of Article 8.1.2 because, as of the printed
date, it was not available to the public.
In the real world, of course, it is unlikely that anyone would purposefully
delay distribution of a document. However, a myriad of factors (mechanical,
operational, logistical, etc.) can delay the actual distribution of an end
product. Because of the potential, either accidental or deliberate, for delay
between the dates of printing and distribution, it is clear that the date of
actual production (i.e. emplacement on a hard-copy medium) cannot satisfy
Article 8.1.2. Only the date of issue to the public can fulfil this criterion,
and thus create a ‘published work’ as defined by Article 8. In
short, if it is not available to be viewed by the public, then it cannot be
considered ‘published’. (Incidentally, this is already something
of a dispute when citing some papers. Journals that are issued on a periodic
but regular basis frequently print the final yearly issues of a journal in
December of one year, with the date of that year imprinted on the cover along
with the volume number, but it often takes enough time for the issue to circulate
to libraries and other subscribers that it effectively only becomes viewable
in January of the next year. The debate centres on the proper citation of the
issue: does it include the year in which the issue was printed or the year
it was distributed? Conversely, issues of some publications bearing a ‘January’ date
are available in the preceding December, and similar issues arise). There are,
however, valid concerns over how to pinpoint a date of
‘publication’, in terms of distribution
and broad availability, because (a) distribution
would depend entirely on the time of its
first mailing to subscribers, first customer
order, or first shipment to a public library,
and (b) distribution time increases with
distance from the distribution center. The
latter would require an arbitrary delineation
of some geographic radius from the distribution
center that would constitute an equally arbitrarily
defined ‘sufficient’
number of people to constitute the ‘public’ specified
in Article 8.1.1. This issue remains to be
resolved.
Given this, it seems that E. ningchengensis should have priority
over S. heilmanni, since it was the first name issued in proper format
to the public in a manner that meets all the criteria of Article 8. In point
of fact, between 21 August and 30 September 2002, downloads of the electronic
version of the E. ningchengensis paper formed a noticeable percentage
of the total number of downloads from the relevant issue of Naturwissenschaften
(D. Czeschlik, pers. comm., 2003) – it was thus both widely available
and broadly distributed. The only remaining impediment for the nomenclatural
validity of E. ningchengensis is that the paper falls under the purview
of Article 9.8: its initial release on 21 August was in electronic format.
The electronic version of the E. ningchengensis paper is identical
in all respects to the hard-copy, printed version issued later by Naturwissenschaften except
in two ways: (1) the time of issue, and (2) the ISSN number of the issue (the
electronic version is 1432-1904, while the printed copy is 0028-1042). The
latter is unimportant since ISSN numbers are rarely provided in bibliographic
citations. However, the identical content of both versions do share a unique
means of being cited: the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) code. DOIs provide
a means of referencing the same body of information, regardless of its existence
in electronic and/or printed format.
Electronic documents,
citability, DOIs and the Code
The DOI system is commissioned and managed by the not-for-profit International
DOI Foundation (for detailed information, see http://www.doi.org).
A DOI consists of a series of numbers and letters that is unique to any one
document (one unique set of documents), regardless of format. Technically,
DOIs are not limited to text-based publications, but can be issued to photographs,
etc. For the purposes of this proposal, only scientific publications will be
considered. The DOI consists of a prefix and a suffix, each with no length
requirement. The prefix refers to any issuing organization; an organization
may have more than one, but for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, it
is probable that all issues of a journal series would have the same prefix.
The suffix identifies the individual document and its characters can contain
the name of the journal as well as the date of issue along with the unique
code for each individual document. For electronic documents, the DOI can be
coupled with a Uniform Resource Locator (URL, or WWW address) to become ‘actionable’:
one can simply click on the DOI to be brought directly to the relevant document
(assuming subscription access is available, an obstacle shared with print media).
As an example, the DOI number for the E. ningchengensis article is
doi:10.1007/s00114-002-0353-8, and its citable URL affiliate would be http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00114-002-0353-8.
The reader is referred to the list of cited references below to view an example
of the inclusion of a DOI in a bibliographic citation. In essence, the DOI
is a ‘supercharged bar code’ (Walter, 2001) for publications and,
more importantly, content. (The electronic version of a document accessed via
its DOI number has an additional advantage over traditional, paper documents
in that the electronic version can contain links to other DOI material – in
essence, a document can ‘contain’ its referenced documents for
easy access (Walter, 2001)). Because both the 21 August electronic and 30 September
printed versions of the E. ningchengensis article have the same DOI
number, they are cited identically, and the dual ‘publication’ dates
become irrelevant; only the first one matters, and the date of publication
is firmly defined as 21 August 2002.
Archival systems (e.g. CrossRef) currently register DOIs for journal
articles, and those registrations are carried into databasing systems (e.g.
MedLine, ISI); future expansion of this system may include book chapters, conference
proceedings, etc. (Paskin, 2002). Of more immediate significance, an increasingly
large number of journals relevant to the zoological community are registering
DOI numbers for their content, including Nature and Science.
Although no zoological journal has yet taken this step, DOI numbers are succeeding
even page numbers in some prominent journals (e.g. Physical Review of
the American Physical Society (APS)
– articles are cited using only their
unique DOI suffixes, e.g. Physical Review A
67: 050301 [2003] – readers can examine
this practice firsthand via the APS publications
web site at http://pra.aps.org).
This practice, probably appearing ungainly
to readers unfamiliar with it, alleviates
the need to await a hard-copy publication
to establish page numbers for a ‘complete’ bibliographic
citation of a paper. This allows for easier
and faster incorporation of newly published
material into manuscripts and thus the more
rapid completion of manuscripts for submission,
keeping submitted content timelier. In a
somewhat less radical step, Nature provides
DOI numbers for articles available on-line
prior to hard-copy issuance and recommends
that, until a printed copy with page numbers
is available, on-line articles be cited using
only the DOI number (this directive is spelled
out at Nature’s Advance On-line
Publication (AOP) site, http://www.nature.com/cgitaf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/
ncurrent/toc_r.html). Nature also
specifies (http://www.nature.com/
nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/about.html)
that their AOP versions of an article are
definitive because of their DOI numbers.
(At the same site, Nature also discusses
the increasing irrelevance of the date of
printing as a ‘publication date’ owing
to the advent of electronic publication).
In the case of E. ningchengensis, Naturwissenschaften makes
the same statement at http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,10
735,5- 113-2-99044-0,00.html; undoubtedly,
other journals have similar proclamations.
The 21 August, electronic version of the E.
ningchengensis paper, is, therefore,
definitive in all the same ways as would
be any hard-copy release. In a move perhaps
highly significant for the Zoological Code,
steps are currently under way to utilize
the DOI system to establish new standards
for the International Code of Prokaryotic
Nomenclature (Garrity &
Lyons, 2003).
The DOI system also alleviates the ephemeral nature of the URL system – the
DOI number will always ‘point’
to the same content regardless of whether
the URL of the issuing organization or journal
changes or disappears. DOIs thus act as a
single, authoritative repository for data
(Paskin, 2002). It thus increases the long-term
preservability of electronic media while
simultaneously not interfering with its ability
to be used for active research (Paskin, 2002).
Although it does not address the concept
of long-term archiving of electronic documents
on some storage medium, the nature of DOI
architecture is such that new means of accessing
data can be created at any point in time
to access the same raw data (i.e. document
content) (Paskin, 2002 and references cited
therein). This goes a long way toward addressing
issues of publication availability in the
face of rapidly-changing technology, and
provides electronic documents a longevity
similar to that of traditional, hard-copy
publications.
Conclusions
I propose to the Commission that, under Article 78.3 (‘Amendments
to the Code’), Articles 8 and 9 of the current Code require both pro-
and retroactive (to the effective date of the Fourth Edition, 1 January 2000)
modification to accommodate the following issue: documents published electronically with
DOI numbers and that are followed by hard-copy printing and distribution be
exempt from Article 9.8 and be recognized as valid, citable sources of zoological
taxonomic information and that their electronic publication dates be considered
definitive. Note that this does not require electronic publications to have
DOI numbers; only that any paper appearing in electronic format that does have
a DOI number, and is followed by traditional, hard-copy issuance, is an acceptable
place for the appearance of zoological nomenclatural action. Electronic publications
lacking DOI numbers lack the citability benefits enjoyed by DOI registered
documents and, regardless of whether followed by hard-copy release, will still
be subject to Article 9.8 and be considered invalid for zoological nomenclatural
actions. Such a change may be issued as a Declaration (Article 78.3.3 and subject
to the provisions of Article 80.1), since it entails only minor changes to
Articles 8.1.3 and 9.8, as follows (recommended additions in italics):
Article 8.1.3. It must have
been produced in an edition containing simultaneously
obtainable copies by a method that assures
numerous identical and durable copies, including
documents that contain identical Digital
Object Identifier numbers and for which electronic
documents are followed by hard-copy release.
Article 9.8. Text or illustrations
distributed by means of electronic signals
(e.g. by means of the World Wide Web), except
where such material meets the provisions
of Article 8.1.3; or . . .
No change is required
to Article 21 because the date inherent to
a DOI assignation falls within the scope
of Article 21.2, as worded.
The clause added to Article 8.1.3 may, to ensure incentive is provided
to follow electronic copies with paper printing for additional archival security,
have inserted a specified maximum amount of time after which a hard copy must
follow the electronic version, failing which any nomenclatural action in the
electronic version becomes void. A name published electronically but never
followed by hard copy issue would be invalid, and the validity of any names
(potential synonyms) proposed subsequent to its electronic issue would follow
their chronological issue. This would create brief periods (the time frame
between electronic issue and the final date during which the name would be
valid only if subsequently issued in print) during which synonymy could not
be established because one criterion (the time aspect) has not been fulfilled – the
electronic name would be ‘conditionally available’. No ready solution
to this problem presents itself, though the author notes from personal observation
that, for most journals, the amount of time separating electronic and hard
copy publication is usually less than three months. Longer mandated periods
of time would increase the potential for this type of problem to occur, but
longer periods would be desirable because they allow temporary hard copy publication
problems to be overcome. The establishment of a formal, mandatory registry
of animal names as part of the Code (present or future), as has been suggested
on many past occasions (e.g. Thorne, 2003), would help alleviate the problem
by tracking the validity of names and their dates of description (which can
be based on, and easily tied to, a DOI), making it easier to determine whether
or not a conditionally available name ever becomes fully available and, if
not, which subsequently proposed name would become the senior synonym. The
same principle would apply to any junior homonym published during this period
of conditional availability; such a homonym would not be valid unless or until
the senior homonym lost its validity by which time a substitute name might
have been proposed for the junior name.
With the ever increasing number of researchers working on a finite set
of zoological taxa, combined with the advent (and increasing prevalence) of
electronic publication, situations such as that exemplified by the Epidendrosaurus
ningchengensis/Scansoriopteryx heilmanni case could easily become
more common. It is thus critical that the Commission takes steps to alleviate
such situations and regulate taxonomic synonymies by recognizing that some
electronic publications (those with DOIs) constitute ‘publication’
as much as any printed manuscript does. Should
the Commission adopt the recommended changes,
the E. ningchengensis/S. heilmanni case
(should they prove to represent the same
taxon) is readily resolved without further
involvement by the Commission, as E.
ningchengensis is demonstrably the senior
name.
Recognizing DOIs as a suitable means of identifying content that contains
nomenclatural actions in joint electronic and paper publishing enables zoological
systematists to take advantage of accelerated publishing and more widespread
and rapid distribution of zoological matter to both the scientific community
and the public. Furthermore, it would be a logical amendment in light of the
fact that the scientific publishing community, as exemplified by Nature, Naturwissenschaften,
and numerous others, has itself redefined the term ‘published’ to
include electronic publications. The amendments recommended here target the
distinctive – and highly desirable – benefits inherent in coupling
rapid on-line publication and widespread distribution with the traditional
benefits enjoyed by print media and serve to augment the purpose of the Code:
the stability of zoological nomenclatural actions.
Acknowledgements
The formulation of
the amendments proposed herein resulted from
numerous, educational conversations with
Dr Norman Paskin and Miss Nadia Halabi (International
DOI Foundation), Drs Tatiana and Dieter Czeschlik
(Naturwissenschaften), and Ed Pentz
(CrossRef) concerning the use of DOIs in
publication, databasing, and archiving. Miss
Jean Lacovara (Bryn Mawr College) graciously
provided the perspective of the library community
on archiving and the use of libraries as
research institutions. Drs Zhang Fucheng
and Zhou Zhonghe (Institute of Vertebrate
Paleontology and Paleoanthropology) welcomed
discussion of their experience with international
publication issues. On-line conversations
with Drs Robert Güsten (Hessisches Landesmuseum),
Bill Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences),
Neal Evenhuis (Bishop Museum), and Ron Gatrelle
(The International Lepidoptera Survey) provided
excellent feedback and food for thought.
Valuable discussions and comments on earlier
versions of this manuscript were provided
by Dr Peter Dodson, Miss Barbara Grandstaff,
Dr Matt Lamanna, Miss Suzanna Richter, and
Miss Lisa Rodrigues (University of Pennsylvania),
and Drs Neal Evenhuis and Andrew Polaszek
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature).
The author declares that he is in no way
affiliated with, nor was he approached by,
the IDF.
References
Czerkas, S.A. & Yuan, C. 2002.
An arboreal maniraptoran from northeast China.
Pp. 63-95 in Czerkas, S.J. (Ed.), Feathered
Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight.
The Dinosaur Museum Journal 1. The Dinosaur
Museum, Blanding, U.S.A.
Garrity, G.M. & Lyons, C. 2003. Future-proofing
biological nomenclature. OMICS, 7:
31-34.
Godfray, H.C.J. 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417:
17-19. doi: 10.1038/417017a.
Mallet, J. & Willmott, K. 2002. Taxonomy:
renaissance or Tower of Babel? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(2):
57-59. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00061-7.
Olshevsky, G. 1991. A revision of the Parainfraclass
Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings,
2: 1-196. (Self-published).
Paskin, N. 2002. Digital Object Identifiers. Proceedings
of ICSTI Seminar: Symposium on Digital Preservation of the Record
of Science, ICSTI, 14-15 February 2002. http://www.doi.org/topics/020210
_CSTI.pdf.
Thorne, J. 2003. Zoological Record and
registration of new names in zoology. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 60(1): 7-11.
Walter, M. 2001. E-book project highlights role
of DOI in selling digital content. The Seybold Report, 1(6):
8-12.
Wilson, E.O. 2002. The encyclopedia of life. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution, 18(2): 77-81.
doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00040-X.
Zhang, F., Zhou, Z., Xu, X. & Wang, X. 2002.
A juvenile coelurosaurian theropod from China indicates arboreal
habits. Naturwissenschaften, 89: 394-398.
doi:10.1007 /s00114-002-0353-8.
