Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Responsive image
Issue: Vol. 2 No. 2: In progress
Type: Proposal
Published: 2026-06-11
DOI: 10.11646/bpn.2.2.3
Page range: 28-34
Abstract views: 73
PDF downloaded: 26

What Constitutes a Publication under the PhyloCode: Discussion and Proposed Clarifications

CR2P, CNRS/MNHN/Sorbonne Université, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature nomenclatural acts peer review phylogenetic nomenclature preprint publication requirements

Abstract

Changing publication practices require clarifications about what constitutes a publication under the PhyloCode. If preprints are to be explicitly excluded, even when they have been peer-reviewed, the list of excluded works mentioned in Article 4.6 of the PhyloCode must be extended. Alternatively, if the CPN prefers to consider peer-reviewed preprints published under the PhyloCode (provided that the preprint server complies with Article 4.2), a note to clarify this should be added after Article 4.6. An argument is presented that this latter solution would be more advantageous for the academic community.

 

References

  1. Asher, R. 2019. The origins of Lissamphibia. Peer Community in Paleontology 1:100002. https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.paleo.100002
  2. Avissar-Whiting, M. 2021. How the world is adapting to preprints. Nature portfolio. https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-021-00026-5
  3. Avissar-Whiting, M., F. Belliard, S. M. Bertozzi, A. Brand, K. Brown, G. Clément-Stoneham, S. Dawson, G. Dey, D. Ecer, and S. C. Edmunds. 2024. Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. PLoS Biology 22:e3002502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
  4. Bourguet, D., and T. Guillemaud. 2024. Peer-reviewed preprints and the publish-review-curate model. Plan S https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/peer-reviewed-preprints-and-the-publish-review-curate-model/
  5. Bourne, P. E., J. K. Polka, R. D. Vale, and R. Kiley. 2017. Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Computational Biology 13:e1005473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473
  6. Buranyi, S. 2017. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian 27 June 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?
  7. Cantino, P. D., and K. de Queiroz. 2020. International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode). CRC Press – Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429446320
  8. Cobb, M. 2017. The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLoS biology 15:e2003995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995
  9. Douglas, K. 1990. The serials crisis: Adjusting to change. The Serials Librarian 18:111–121. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v18n01_08
  10. Eleftheriadi, K., N. Guiglielmoni, J. Salces-Ortiz, C. Vargas-Chavez, G. I. Martínez-Redondo, M. Gut, J.-F. Flot, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, and R. Fernández. 2023. The genome sequence of the Montseny horsehair worm, Gordionus montsenyensis sp. nov., a key resource to investigate Ecdysozoa evolution. bioRxiv:2023.2006. 2026.546503. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.26.546503
  11. Grossmann, A., and B. Brembs. 2021. Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. F1000Research 10:20. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2
  12. Guillemaud, T., B. Facon, and D. Bourguet. 2019. Peer Community In: A free process for the recommendation of unpublished scientific papers based on peer review. Proceedings of the ElPub Conference. https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2019.23
  13. Haak, L. L., M. Fenner, L. Paglione, E. Pentz, and H. Ratner. 2012. ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing 25:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404
  14. Henriques, S. O., N. Rzayeva, S. Pinfield, and L. Waltman. 2023. Preprint review services: Disrupting the scholarly communication landscape? SocArXiv:1–31. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/8c6xm_v3
  15. Hindle, S., and D. Saderi. 2017a. Preprint journal clubs: Your opinions revealed. Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.151193754.44459059
  16. Hindle, S., and D. Saderi. 2017b. PREreview—a new resource for the collaborative review of preprints. eLife Labs. https://elifesciences.org/labs/57d6b284/prereview-a-new-resource-for-the-collaborative-review-of-preprints
  17. Inglis, J. R., and R. Sever. 2016. BioRxiv: A progress report. ASAPbio. https://asapbio.org/biorxiv/ Accessed March 9, 2026.
  18. Laurin, M. 2023. The Advent of PhyloCode: The Continuing Evolution of Biological Nomenclature. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003092827
  19. Laurin, M., O. Lapauze, and D. Marjanović. 2019. What do ossification sequences tell us about the origin of extant amphibians? Peer Community in Paleontology:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1101/352609
  20. Lemberger, T., and B. Pulverer. 2019. Review commons—pre‐journal peer review. The EMBO Reports 20:EMBR201949663. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949663
  21. Mercier, M., V. Magloire, and M. Karnani. 2020. Enhancing scientific dissemination in neuroscience via preprint peer-review: “Peer Community In Circuit Neuroscience”. Neuroanatomy and Behaviour 2:e9. https://doi.org/10.35430/nab.2020.e9
  22. Mougin, C., W. Sanchez, and P. Labadie. 2021. Peer Community in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Chemistry in Colloque 2021 de la Société d’Ecotoxicologie Fondamentale et Appliquée. https://hal.science/hal-03229307/
  23. Muñoz-Tamayo, R., K. Barragán-Fonseca, M. Gagaoua, R. Gervais, F. Gondret, F. Meurens, C. Nawroth, S. Rafat, and Y. Ramayo-Caldas. 2025. Peer community in animal science: a free open science publication model. Animal-Science Proceedings 16:466–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anscip.2025.07.297
  24. Odlyzko, A. M. 2015. Open Access, library and publisher competition, and the evolution of general commerce. Evaluation Review 39:130–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751
  25. Pennington, C. R., and D. Heim. 2022. Reshaping the publication process: Addiction research and theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports. Addiction Research & Theory 30:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2021.1931142
  26. PREreview. 2017. <https://www.prereview.org> Accessed 12 March 2026.
  27. Queffelec, A., B. Maureille, M. Arzarello, R. Blasco, O. Crandell, L. Doyon, S. Halcrow, E. Karoune, A. Ruiz-Redondo, and P. Van Peer. 2023. Peer Community In Archaeology: A community-driven free and transparent system for preprints peer-reviewing. Archeologia e Calcolatori 34:125–134. https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2518070
  28. Razmjooei, M. J., and N. Thibault. 2022. Morphometric changes in two Late Cretaceous calcareous nannofossil lineages support diversification fueled by long-term cooling. PaleorXiv:nfyc9, ver. 4. https://doi.org/10.31233/osf.io/nfyc9
  29. Richter, F. C., E. Gea‐Mallorquí, A. Mortha, N. Ruffin, and N. Vabret. 2023. The preprint club: A blueprint for community‐based peer review. EMBO reports 24:e57258. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202357258
  30. Stern, B. M., and E. K. O’Shea. 2019. A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS Biology 17:e3000116. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116
  31. Sicilia, M.-A., E. García-Barriocanal, and S. Sánchez-Alonso. 2017. Community curation in open dataset repositories: Insights from Zenodo. Procedia Computer Science 106:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.009
  32. Vale, R. D. 2015. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:13439–13446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511912112
  33. Zoccali, C., and F. Mallamaci. 2023. Reimagining peer review: The emergence of peer community in registered reports system. Journal of Nephrology 36:2407–2411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-023-01709-6