 |
 |
On 4 Mar 2008, at 15:41, John Smith wrote: > The problem is that the item referred to may have been published in > a peer reviewed journal but the full text available from the > repository may not be the final peer reviewed version. To try and clear up this ambiguity, the next version of EPrints will ship with metadata as informed by the VERSIONS project toolkit, to try and identify the role of each document in the scholarly communications cycle. So each deposited 'eprint' for a published paper could contain four separate PDFs, each now clearly identified as a preprint, a postprint, some presentation slides and some supplemental data. Previously, authors could add a full-text description for each of the documents, now they can also choose from a predefined set of values. Repository managers will now be able to reliably search for all published items that only have PREPRINTS deposited, when the ROMEO status of the journal indicates that they could deposit postprints or even publisher versions. As if repository managers didn't already have enough on their plates :-) -- Les Carr PS I ought to say that the VERSIONS project makes no endorsement of EPrints software, or its implementation of their toolkit recommendations.