Report
of the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing
|
Report of the Special Committee on Electronic
Publishing
Richard H. Zander, Secretary Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299.
richard.zander@mobot.org Submitted December 31, 2003 At the XVI International Botanical Congress in St. Louis in 1999, a “Special
Committee on Electronic Publishing” was re-established (Barrie & Nicolson
in Taxon 50: 893-896. 2001) with a charge to report to the XVII International
Botanical Congress in Vienna in 2005 on the impact of electronic publishing
on the Code. This followed approval of Gen. Prop. A, which authorized
continuation of the Electronic Publications Committee established at the
Tokyo Congress (Englera 20: 17–18. 2000). The convener was K. Wilson (NSW, Australia), the secretary R. Zander
(MO, U.S.A.), with J. McNeill (E, U.K.), Rapporteur-général, and F. Barrie
(F, U.S.A.), Secretary of the General Committee, as ex officio members.
Committee members (additional to the convener and secretary, and restricted
to those actually voting) were B. Baum (DAO, Canada); A. Chapman (CRIA,
Campinas, SP, Brazil); M. Crosby (MO, U.S.A.); T. Daniel (CAS, U.S.A.); E.
Farr (US, U.S.A.); N. Hind (K, U.K); V. Hollowell (MO, U.S.A.); P. Kirk (IMI,
U.K.); J. Kirkbride (USDA U.S.A.); P.-A. Loizeau (G, Switzerland); R. Moe
(UC, U.S.A.); A. Orchard (A.B.R.S., Canberra, Australia); P. Philipson (RUH,
South Africa); D. Triebel (M, Germany); and J. Zarucchi (MO, U.S.A.). The
acronyms are the herbarium abbreviations from Index Herbariorum (http://www.nybg.org/bsci/ih/ih.html). The Report of the previous Committee (Zander & Wilson in Taxon 47:
175-177. 1998) to the St. Louis Congress examined, among others, the
following important questions: 1. How can an electronic publication be archived in a form that will
remain readable by future hardware and software? 2. How can an original version be protected from changes? 3. How can each publication be uniquely identified for access
purposes? The Report indicated that these questions were being answered by
librarians, archivists, and publishers, in concert with computer experts, but
the solutions had not yet been widely implemented. Time was needed for those
with appropriate expertise to formulate long-term guidelines. The Committee
recognized that the pace of biodiversity loss demanded that nomenclatural
publication be facilitated, but most members thought that it was premature to
allow electronic publication of new names.
Several proposals for possible interim solutions were put forward (Greuter
& Hawksworth in Taxon 48: 69-128. 1999), but these were not accepted by
the St. Louis Congress as changes in the Code. The members of the St. Louis incarnation of the Committee included
practising botanists, librarians, and database experts. Many subjects were
discussed including archiving, databases, digital longevity, effective
publication, indexing centres, leaving full responsibility for e-publication
to journal publishers and editors, possibility of malicious or inadvertent
modification, notification and registration, PDF/X and other formats, CD-ROM
and DVD form factors, the fact that registration and data-basing are
different problems from the Committee’s charge, and whether to require two or
more hardcopy depositions, and a transition period. The discussions included
extensive exchange of WWW URLs as links to various up-to-date, technical
expositions on aspects of electronic publication. Preliminary ballots demonstrated that most of the Committee agreed
that the time has come for the I.C.B.N. to permit electronic publication of
new names. Only three of the 14 voting were fully against electronic
publication at this time. Of the 11 positive voters, however, there was no
clear agreement on means of publication, with 6 voting support for WWW journals
only, 2 for distributable media (compact discs) only, and 3 voting for both
WWW journals and distributable media. The lack of general agreement on one
recommendation may be because the Committee was not a random subsample of
systematists, but a group with strong and disparate visions. Despite the
split, the overwhelming agreement on the part of the Committee was that the
time for effective publication of new names in electronic media has arrived.
So it was suggested as a compromise that one Web proposal and one
distributable media proposal, each thought to have a good chance of approval,
be included with this Report as Committee Proposals. The vote of support for
this compromise (with 17 voting) was 13 yes and 4 no, which is sufficient to
support a change in principle by a 76% majority. If both proposals given
below are accepted by the Congress, the Editorial Committee can combine them
with appropriate wording. Before addressing the pros and cons of these proposals, arguments
against allowing electronic effective publication need to be addressed: (1) Electronic media are relatively impermanent in taxonomy’s time
frame. Response to this
argument: It can be pointed out that, as with digital media, sulphite
paper and xerocopy toner both degrade over time, while distributable media
(CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW and DVD discs) now have rather long shelf lives (Besser
at http://www.nedcc.org/digital/ix.htm), and, for the nonce, Web
publications can be archived in hardcopy or as distributable media until
librarians archive Web publications as a matter of course. (2) It is easy to make modifications or new versions incorporating
small but significant changes to electronic files. Response:
Pending widespread implementation of protection from modification such as
digital certificates and signatures, present Web journal publishers and
Web-based distributors can be relied on to archive unmodified copies; (3) New electronic publication standards will arise, perhaps
combining the best of PDF and XML file formats. Response: Certain protocols and media are now entirely standard and
non-proprietary, including the ISO PDF/X file format (see discussions by
Adobe at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/pdfs/pdfarchiving.pdf
and ANSI at http://www.npes.org/standards/ISO/ISOBulletin-PDFX-Jan02.pdf),
and compact and DVD discs. (4) Effective electronic publication is unnecessary: The old
argument that paper publication restricts distribution of information is
obviated by the fact that many hardcopy systematic journals now provide
electronic reprints, and these are widely distributable and searchable on the
Web, e.g., of a total of ca. 10,000 electronic journals (mostly
parallel-published) worldwide (Maclenan in J. Electronic Publishing 5(1),
1999 http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/05-01/maclennan.html),
the University of Guelph library provides full text WWW access to electronic
versions of 105 parallel-published botanical journals. Response: Provision should be made for the increasing
number of journals that now are entirely electronic, this probably being the
way of the future for data-intensive scientific publication (Lenares at http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Events_and_Conferences/lenares99.pdf;
Mari Mutt in Caribbean J. Science, 35: 160-164. 1999), and for additional
discussion see Journal of Electronic Publishing http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/). (000) New proposal permitting effective publication in electronic journals on the WWW with PDF. Add to Art. 29, a new paragraph, Art. 29.2: “29.2. Effective publication on or after 1 January 2006 may be in
electronic format in an all-electronic journal (i.e., a journal not formally
issuing a paper version) if the following criteria are met: (1) the journal
must have its own ISSN number, (2) it must publish on the World Wide Web, (3)
identical copies (electronic or both electronic and paper) must be deposited
by the author or the journal in three libraries accessible to botanists
generally and the identity of such libraries must be cited in the
publication, (4) the date of publication must be cited in the publication,
and (5) the publication must be in Portable Document Format (PDF), preferably
following the ISO PDF/X specification. Effective publication in such
all-electronic journals is by the online electronic version, not by any paper
issues no matter when issued, which are considered later publications or
reprints, nor by electronic forms other than the World Wide Web such as
CD-ROM’s. Note 1. Subscription to the all-electronic journal by a library will
be equivalent to deposit of a copy.” In consequence Art. 29.1 must also be changed to read (changes in “29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution
of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or
at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists
generally, or electronically as provided by Art. 29.2. It is not
effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of
names in collections or gardens open to the public, by the issue of microfilm
made from manuscripts, typescripts or other unpublished material, [‘by
publication online,’ deleted] or by dissemination of distributable
electronic media.” and Art. 31.1 “31.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the
printed or electronic matter became available as defined in Art. 29
and 30. In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one
appearing in the printed or electronic matter must be accepted as
correct.” Discussion: Several new all-electronic scientific journals that could benefit
science in being able to effectively publish new names are now available only
on the WWW. These include Insight http://www.mpm.edu/cr/insight/insighthome.html;
Palaeontologia Electronica on the World Wide Web http://palaeo-electronica.org/;
and Phyloinformatics http://phyloinformatics.org/index.php.
Generally, the number of electronic journals increased 15-fold between 1991
and 1996 (Mari Mutt in Caribbean J. Science, 35: 160-164. 1999), with almost
2500 all-electronic journals in 1997 (Lenares at http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Events_and_Conferences/lenares99.pdf).
During the next seven years (from the publication of this Report in Taxon)
until the Congress following that in Vienna, many more journals will appear
only in electronic form. One positive element is that some of these journals
can afford to be entirely free to subscribers. The requirement of deposition
of copies at three cited libraries is a stopgap measure ensuring
library-level archiving that may be repealed at a future Congress as
electronic journals become widely and professionally archived. The PDF format
is now quite standard for distribution of scientific electronic material on
the Web, allowing exact reproduction of a virtual hardcopy with all hardcopy
elements including pagination and quality illustration in a single file; all
journals now available as reprints on the Web are offered at least in PDF
format, as well as HTML and proprietary (usually faster loading) formats. The
ISO PDF/X protocol is public domain and is widely used in commerce,
especially in the advertising business. (000) New proposal permitting effective electronic publication by Compact Discs (CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW) and DVD discs. Modify Art. 29.1 (changes in italic): “29.1. Publication is effected on or after 1 January 2006, under this
Code, only by distribution of printed matter or by dissemination of
distributable electronic media, namely compact discs (CD-ROM, CD-R, and
CD-RW) and DVD discs (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general
public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to
botanists generally. For a name to be effectively published through
electronic media, the medium must have been produced in an edition containing
simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical
copies, and it must contain a statement by the author that any new name or
nomenclatural act within it is intended for publication under provisions of
Art. 29.1 Of the Code, and is intended for permanent, public, scientific
record. It is not effected by communication of new names at a public
meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the
public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts, typescripts or other
unpublished material, or by publication online. Note 1. Publications of names in an electronic journal are effectively
published only through dissemination of printed copies, or electronic media
as laid out in the provisions of Art. 29.” In consequence, Art. 31.1 must be changed to: “31.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the
printed or distributable electronic matter became available as defined
in Art. 29 and 30. In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the
one appearing in the printed or electronic matter must be accepted as
correct.” Discussion: This would permit publication on CD and DVD discs, which are now standard
media for long-term archiving of digital information (Erlanger in PC Magazine
63, January 20, 2004), and is a minimum implementation that will allow us to
examine where the technology is likely to advance in on-line publication and
archiving in the future. As to aspects of archiving distributable media, at
present we do not have provisions for printed publications to be published on
archival paper, with archival inks, etc., and some of these could easily be
unreadable in quite short periods. We
should not try to force archival provisions onto CD-ROMs, and DVDs that we do
not require for print. Gold-dye CDs are reputed to have a life of at least
100 years, and it is far easier to maintain copies by reproducing them than
it is to continually reprint printed copies in archival form. This Proposal
also brings the I.C.B.N. into line with similar provisions of the most recent
(fourth) edition of the I.C.Z.N. (International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature 1999). |
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" ==
document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." :
"http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript
src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js'
type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker =
_gat._getTracker("UA-3783322-4");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>