Frances Shipsey
eServices Librarian
Library
London
School of Economics and Political Science
10 Portugal Street
London
WC2A 2HD
t: +44(0)20 7955 6915
f: +44(0)20 7955 7454
e:
[log in to unmask]
w:
www.lse.ac.uk/library
From: Stevan
Harnad [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 April 2008
17:53
To: Talat Chaudhri [tac]
Cc:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: non-intuitive terms
"pre-print" and "post-print"
Dear All:
Yes, it would have been better to have had more transparent
terms form the outset, but "preprint" -- meaning mostly "unrefereed, unpublished
draft", has been in use for nearly 20 years now, by the physicists, and
postprint, meaning "post-refereeing draft" has been in use for almost a decade
now. Moreover, the Publisher "Green" policies are based on preprint and
postprint permissions.
Yes, both authors and publishers sometimes misunderstand,
exactly as Talat says: They think preprint means the prepublication final draft.
In fact that is the only potential point of ambiguity. Unrefereed draft is
clearly "pre-print" and "post-print" is clearly refereed. (The other mistike is
to think that the postprint necessarily means only the publisher's
PDF.)
But I think it is far too late to change terminology. We
should simply make sure we understand that the pre- and the post- refers to
*refereeing* as the boundary, not "prninting", and that both are "eprints"
(hence not "prints") and that we have to clearly define, every time, that
an eprint is a preprint before refereeing and a postprint after refereeing:
refereeing is the watershed, not "print" publication.
It is fully comprehensible, if clearly explained (and clearly
understood by the explainer!).
Stevan Harnad
PS Talat, please post my reply if it does not go through to
the list. Ta.
On 23-Apr-08, at 12:14 PM, Talat Chaudhri [tac]
wrote:
Dear
all,
Attention
has been drawn once again to the non-intuitive nature of our terms “pre-print”
and “post-print”. In our terms, as we all understand well in repository circles,
these mean respectively “author’s version as sent to publisher before peer
review” and “author’s version as sent to publisher following peer review”. It
has nonetheless been noted many times on various mailing lists that authors (and
others) often misunderstand our use of the terms.
On
the basis of intuitive word formation, one would expect “pre-print” to mean the
version prior to printing (rather than prior to peer review) and “post-print” to
mean the version after printing (rather than after peer review). Since the
author’s intervention is required between these two processes in order to
correct and then re-send the manuscript in a new version, it is
counter-intuitive to view peer review as part of the printing process, which is
what is conceptually required in order to apply the term “pre-print” to the
unrefereed paper. Secondly, the term “post-print” directly implies the form that
is created by and exists as a result of printing, which strongly suggests the
final PDF. (That PDF is a poor format for preservation is a quite separate
issue.) It does not matter, incidentally, that “printing” may actually mean
creating a PDF for an electronic journal: we should see the creation of the
final branded version as “printing” whatever the eventual medium of publication,
if we are going to understand the natural progressions of language that lead
people to analyse word meanings.
It
is clear that the preceding paragraph does not describe the “proper” use of
these terms by the repository community. We must therefore ask ourselves if
these are appropriate terms to use publicly, since many repository managers have
reported misunderstandings based on these terms (as we may extrapolate from the
incorrect assumption made by certain publishers reported below by Stevan
Harnad). I am by no means the first to suggest that we need a more apt, and
perhaps granular, set of terms of reference in order to avoid confusing our
authors. I know, for instance, that those involved with versioning projects have
already made similar suggestions. I am often left to work out on my own whether
an author has or has not sent me what they have said they have sent, which could
be avoided entirely if the terms were made more abundantly clear.
Perhaps
we would be best using “pre-refereed” and “post-refereed” as the basic terms. We
could then say “post-refereed author’s version” and “publisher’s final PDF” or
similar phrases. I think a lot of repository managers already use “author’s
final version/format” and “publisher’s final version/format” in this way.
Naturally, I don’t suggest that we actually redefine “pre-print” and
“post-print” more intuitively as described above, because they have had currency
already and this would only add to the confusion that already exists. I am
simply saying that we should try to keep these terms to ourselves as repository
jargon, while using more intuitive terminology when dealing with academics and
with other end-users of our repositories, so as not to create room for error. It
would not hurt, though, to give preference to the clearer terms even in dealings
with other repository professionals. New repository managers, of whom we hope
there will be many, would certainly benefit too. After all, these are only
terms, and the best terms are the ones with the clearest meanings.
I
hope these remarks, while not especially original, will be useful in stimulating
debate on how to avoid this kind of confusion. Thanks,
Talat
From: American
Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 22 April 2008 15:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publisher's requirements for links
from published articles
SHERPA RoMEO "Green" is not quite
the right category, because it means "BOTH postprint-Green AND preprint-Green"
whereas what you should be covering is postprint-Green, whether or not the
publisher also happens to be preprint-Green, and you should also look carefully
at the preprint Greens, because many of them mean "postprint" (author's final
refereed draft) even though they say "preprint" (unrefereed draft) wrongly
thinking that "postprint" means publisher's PDF!
-----
Dr
Talat Chaudhri, Ymgynghorydd Cadwrfa / Repository Advisor
Tîm
Cynorthwywyr Pwnc ac E-Lyfrgell / Subject Support and E-Library
Team
Gwasanaethau Gwybodaeth / Information Services
Prifysgol Aberystwyth
/ Aberystwyth University
Llyfrgell Hugh Owen Library, Penglais, Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion. SY23 3DZ
E-bost
/ E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Ffôn
/ Tel (Hugh Owen): (62)2396
Ffôn
/ Tel (Llandinam): (62)8724
Ffacs
/ Fax: (01970) (62)2404
CADAIR: http://cadair.aber.ac.uk
Cadwrfa
ymchwil ar-lein Prifysgol Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
University's online research repository