tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post2353239655732415999..comments2024-01-20T16:39:42.179+11:00Comments on PhyloBotanist: Puzzled about online first and print publication in different yearsAlex SLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-11020948088626973832013-03-29T04:49:38.319+11:002013-03-29T04:49:38.319+11:00See more here: http://www.biometrics.tibs.org/fpdo...See more here: http://www.biometrics.tibs.org/fpdoi.htm<br />"it would be incorrect to cite the article by full reference with usual bibliographic info with a 2004 date "GYhttp://gyz.weebly.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-41373163374353113992013-03-29T04:45:51.065+11:002013-03-29T04:45:51.065+11:00Thanks for the post. i have the same question. See...Thanks for the post. i have the same question. See statements from some journals I found: http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/early/recent<br />"The online first release date serves as the official date of publication."<br /><br />http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/recent<br />" with the official publication date being the date of the manuscript's first online posting"<br /><br />However, this is not quite the same for some other journals. Take an article of mine as an example. It was published online in 2011, but only appeared in the printed version in 2013. The citation provided at the journal site uses 2013 as the date: <br />Zhang, G. and Weirauch, C. (2013), Sticky predators: a comparative study of sticky glands in harpactorine assassin bugs (Insecta: Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Acta Zoologica, 94: 1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-6395.2011.00522.x<br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1463-6395.2011.00522.x/abstract (click on 'how to cite')Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305228415104525562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-60767682550404894792013-03-21T01:25:22.663+11:002013-03-21T01:25:22.663+11:00http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fenerbahce
This...http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fenerbahce<br /><br />This has come up, and the online first publication seems to have been accepted. This is a situation where a genus was described using an unavailable name. This was discovered. The usual professional courtesy of informing the describer was not followed, and a replacement name proposed online. The original describer objected, but was not successful. I'm not able to pull the needed references up on line. They are given in the link.Jim Thomersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-38408973091866081022013-03-03T21:20:42.732+11:002013-03-03T21:20:42.732+11:00Good point, but I assume there will be a clear rul...Good point, but I assume there will be a clear rule for that depending on whether the relevant code of nomenclature still requires a print version to exist or not. In the latter case, I guess it would be the online first publication that counts?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3342041114052632712.post-5395732476238640452013-03-03T04:59:56.125+11:002013-03-03T04:59:56.125+11:00This also raises a question about the formal date ...This also raises a question about the formal date of publication of a new taxon.Jim Thomersonnoreply@blogger.com