Dear Geoff and annelida readers:
I just got back in the lab today and have now read the brief flurry of
comments regarding my Parandalia "article". Now we know there are
readers of the group out there. I agree with Blake's comments that some
debate/opinion needs to be had to best determine the proper way to handle
electronic distribution of taxonomic information-regardless if it is
review data or original. Maybe this is a good start.
In review: A prior release of a different version of the Parandalia
"article" was printed in the monthly SCAMIT Newsletter. This newsletter
contains a brief disclaimer of formal taxonomic useage and is controlled
in content, not by peer review, but an editor. I suppose I view the
annelid newsgroup as a moderated (i.e. editor) electronic newsletter.
The advantage of electronic distribution of information; even when it is
formatted as a formal taxonomic article, is rapid worldwide
distribution. This is hopefully followed by rapid commentary on the
content of the article by interested readers. Few science journals
publish letters-to-the-editor which contain back and forth commentary
between readers and author. I believe this possibility presents one of
the best strengths of the web-page/newsgroup.
How many pertinent and interesting facts, studies, commentaries, etc are
left in a drawer, file or otherwise buried because workers just don't go
through the hassle of preparing camera ready copy and send it in to an
editorial board that may take 3 months-?x number of years to publish. And
what about page/reprint charges actually making it to costly to publish
valid data?
I hope there is some more consideration/discussion on the appropriate way
to distribute, archive, and cite electronic information. I also hope
that some taxonomists will feel free to provide comments on the information
content in the Parandalia "article".
Bye for now,
Tom Parker
mblcsdla at netcom.com
