Re: [dinosaur] Origolestes, or the blurry limits of nomenclatural availability

I beg to differ. By relegating the science to the supp. inf., the authors
have invited all sorts of other mishaps as well as the nomenclatural one.
It's well known that journals are careless about keeping supplementary
information around; I would not want to put money on it getting properly
stored in all the various backup plans people are supposed to use (LOCKSS,
etc.). Plus 90% of the time it doesn't go through peer review. In short,
supplementary info is grey literature, of no greater reliability or
persistence than, say, an SV-POW! post. Letting the body of a work go into
that slushpile is a terrible, terrible thing to do.

-- Mike.




On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 16:35, David Marjanovic <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The science is fine; the "supp. inf." _is_ a proper descriptive paper that
> goes into amazing detail and will no doubt be useful for generations. The
> question is whether the _nomenclature_ is fine.
>
> (OK, I have issues with the phylogenetic analysis, but at the rate at
> which updated phylogenetic analyses of Mesozoic mammals have been coming
> out, those issues could all be resolved a year or two from now... if
> perhaps only to be replaced by new ones.)
>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 06. Dezember 2019 um 17:21 Uhr
> Von: "Mike Taylor" <[email protected]>
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 16:18, Thomas Richard Holtz <[email protected][mailto:
> [email protected]]> wrote:
>
> > As I said on Facebook, Fie on the authors, reviewers, and editors for
> doing this.
>
> And on the entire academic incentive structure, for making this
> anti-scientific behaviour more advantageous to the authors' careers than a
> proper descriptive paper in a real venue.
>