Hello

Sounds good.

The VERSIONS project toolkit Les mentions is available at:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/VERSIONS_Toolkit_v1_final.pdf

Just to note that although the terms preprint, postprint etc are
understandable to the repository community, the term 'postprint'
especially is not a term that's easily understood by authors themselves
in my (and others' experience).  So, the toolkit refers to and defines
five different stages for journal articles, (with the first three based
on what our survey respondents told us they themselves call the
different stages) as:

Draft - Early version circulated as work in progress.
Submitted Version - The version that has been submitted to a journal for
peer review.
Accepted Version - The author-created version that incorporates referee
comments and is the accepted for publication version.
Published Version - the publisher-created published version.
Updated Version - A version updated since publication.

I think Submitted and Accepted can be mapped to preprint and postprint
fairly easily.  I'd suggest avoiding the use of the term 'postprint'
when explaining to our authors which versions to deposit, though it may
be fine as a shorthand for ourselves.

Any comments on the toolkit are welcome, for a toolkit version 2.

Best wishes

Frances

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 



-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr
Sent: 05 March 2008 09:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Need for a richer description, was: RE: Required and
Desirable metadata ...

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.

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm