@article {24,
	title = {Nomenclatural availability of preliminary electronic versions of taxonomic papers: in need of a clear definition},
	journal = {Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature},
	volume = {72},
	number = {3},
	year = {2015},
	month = {9},
	pages = {252-265},
	type = {Case},
	chapter = {252},
	abstract = {<p>The question of the nomenclatural availability of preliminary electronic\&nbsp;versions of taxonomic papers, distributed online {\textquoteleft}ahead of print{\textquoteright} by some journals\&nbsp;and publishing companies, is addressed again. We disagree with Krell{\textquoteright}s suggestion to\&nbsp;{\textquoteleft}distinguish between content and bibliographical metadata{\textquoteright}. The concept of {\textquoteleft}bibliographical metadata{\textquoteright} does not exist in the Code and should not be incorporated into\&nbsp;it. The citation of publication date, issue and page numbers are part of the relevant\&nbsp;information that is useful in bibliographic references, in text citations and in\&nbsp;synonymic lists that appear in taxonomic publications (which have a much longer life\&nbsp;than most other publications), and should be considered part of the {\textquoteleft}content{\textquoteright} of a\&nbsp;taxonomic paper. In particular, the page of first appearance of a name or of a\&nbsp;nomenclatural act is traditionally cited in taxonomic revisions, monographs, faunas\&nbsp;and catalogues, whether printed or stored in online databases, and this information\&nbsp;is very useful for serious taxonomists. Having two different sets of information in\&nbsp; this\&nbsp;respect, in a first version of the work first published online but then discarded from\&nbsp;the website of the journal, and in a subsequent one included into a journal issue,\&nbsp;would be an indisputable source of confusion, which would not be solved by calling\&nbsp;artificially both these versions the {\textquoteleft}version of record{\textquoteright} as if they were identical. The fact\&nbsp;that {\textquoteleft}pagination is not regulated{\textquoteright} by the Code is fully irrelevant here: many aspects\&nbsp;of taxonomic works are not regulated by the Code but are of crucial importance for\&nbsp;the discipline of taxonomy. Krell{\textquoteright}s proposal is motivated, according to his own\&nbsp;words, by some publishers{\textquoteright} desire to make their\&nbsp; publications more {\textquoteleft}attractive as\&nbsp;outlets of taxonomic research{\textquoteright}. But the purpose of the Code is not to make some\&nbsp;journals more attractive than others; it is to help working taxonomists in their daily\&nbsp;work, to make it easier, more straightforward, efficient, reliable and useful, and less\&nbsp;prone to ambiguity. We recommend rejecting Krell{\textquoteright}s suggestion. On the other hand,\&nbsp;we make the new proposal of the creation of a {\textquoteleft}label{\textquoteright} to which some online journals\&nbsp;and publishing companies might adhere, taking the engagement to publish online\&nbsp;only one single version of each paper, with its final date, issue number and\&nbsp;pagination. Authors will then have the possibility to choose their publication outlet\&nbsp;among those having this label or those following the practice of {\textquoteleft}early view{\textquoteright}.\&nbsp;Currently, such preliminary versions of papers are unavailable under the 2012 <br>Amendment of the Code.</p>},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v72i3.a1},
	author = {Dubois, Alain and Bour, Roger and Ohler, Annemarie}
}
