JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  October 2008

JISC-REPOSITORIES October 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Author's final draft and citing

From:

"Delasalle, Jenny" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Delasalle, Jenny

Date:

Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:22:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (269 lines)

Thanks Stevan,

So, we can reassure academics by teaching them how to cite repository
versions properly: i.e. not to, but to just add the link to the
repository version onto the citation of the published one. 

Has anyone put together such guidelines on citing repository items? Are
we saying the same thing about how to cite repository items?

Kind regards
Jen


Jenny Delasalle
E-Repositories Manager
Research & Innovation Unit
University of Warwick Library
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44) (0) 24 765 75793
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/repositories

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 30 September 2008 15:30
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Author's final draft and citing
> 
> This question has been raised many times and it has a simple, 
> clear and correct answer, in two parts:
> 
> (1) Do not conflate the question of what to CITE -- that is 
> always the canonical published work itself, if the work is 
> published -- with the question of what version of it you 
> managed to ACCESS.
> 
> (2) If you cannot afford access to the publisher's 
> proprietary version, then you access the OA version deposited 
> in the OA Repository, but you always cite the published work 
> (and, preferentially, add the URL of the accessed version too).
> 
> That's it. The only two other minor details are:
> 
> (3) If the work is unpublished, or not yet published, you 
> cite it as unpublished, and, again, add the URL of the 
> version that you accessed.
> 
> (4) The two reasons why it is vastly preferable that OA 
> mandates should specify that it is the author's 
> peer-reviewed, accepted final draft (the "postprint")  that 
> is deposited in the OA repository, rather than the 
> publisher's proprietary PDF is (4a) that far more publishers 
> endorse setting access to the author's deposited postprint as 
> OA immediately, rather than after and embargo, and (4b) PDF 
> is the least useful and functional format, for both human 
> users and for robot data-mining.
> 
> Some comments below:
> 
> 
>  On 9/29/08, Delasalle, Jenny <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > I like to quote the Versions toolkit which mentions in a survey 
> > response that most academics prefer to cite the final, 
> published version...
> 
> Of course, and so they should. But we are talking about what 
> to do if you cannot ACCESS the publisher's proprietary 
> version, and the answer is, access the author's OA postprint 
> version -- but cite the canonical published work, as always.
> 
> > whichever version they have read (p9:
> > http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/VERSIONS_Toolkit_v1_final.pdf)
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > Whilst you're speaking to academics, you could survey them 
> to ask what 
> > they would do...
> 
> Good question, but the right answer is, as always: "If the 
> work is published, I cite the published work." And the URL of 
> the OA version should be added to the citation, as the 
> accessed version.
> 
> >  But there is no evidence that I know of to indicate that 
> anyone will 
> > cite any papers they have read in a repository.
> 
> There is abundant evidence that they cite them, as preprints, 
> and once published, as the published work. While only the 
> unpublished preprint is available, they cite that, as an 
> unpublished preprint. As soon as the paper is published, they 
> cite the published version. While they can only access the 
> preprint or the postprint, users access that; if they can 
> access the publisher's proprietary version, they access that.
> 
> Henneken, E. A., Kurtz, M. J., Warner, S., Ginsparg, P., 
> Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C. S., Thompson, D., 
> Bohlen, E. and Murray, S.
> S. (2006)
> E-prints and Journal Articles in Astronomy: a Productive 
> Co-existence ArXiv, Computer Science, cs.DL/0609126, 22 
> September 2006, in Learned Publishing, Vol. 20, No. 1, 
> January 2007, 16-22
> http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0609126
> 
> > For those with no
> > option (no subscription access), a bland looking draft of 
> the article 
> > is better than not being able to read it at all, though.
> 
> Yes, but if it is published, the published version is still 
> the one to cite.
> 
> > One more point to note here: what do we mean by a "citation"? Our 
> > academics are chiefly concerned with citations in journals that are 
> > indexed by Web of Science. But there are other kinds of citations: 
> > links from others' web pages and reading lists, and from papers in 
> > less prestigious journals or in disciplines not well covered by WoS 
> > and grey literature
> 
> This is mixing apples and oranges: A scholarly/scientific 
> citation is just that: The citation, by a scholarly work or 
> another scholarly work (usually text to text). This is true 
> whether or not ISI happens to index the work. Citations to 
> and from non-ISI journals, as well as to and from books, are 
> all classical citations.
> 
> Web links, however, and reading lists are certainly scholarly 
> impact metrics, but they are not citations.
> 
> > that will help to raise the academic's profile in general 
> and help in 
> > the sharing of scholarly knowledge, even if not raising their 
> > citations directly.
> 
> The perspicuous way to put this that citation counts are only 
> one among a multitude of potential scholarly impact metrics:
> 
> Harnad, S. (2007) Open Access Scientometrics and the UK 
> Research Assessment Exercise. In Proceedings of 11th Annual 
> Meeting of the International Society for Scientometrics and 
> Informetrics 11(1), pp.
> 27-33, Madrid, Spain. Torres-Salinas, D. and Moed, H. F., Eds.
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13804/
> 
> Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A.
> (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web:
> Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. 
> CTWatch Quarterly 3(3). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14418/
> 
> > Our academics are often worried that the content of an early draft 
> > does not reflect well on them (it varies across the 
> disciplines), but 
> > the post-print/accepted version that we ask for is identical to the 
> > published one in its content.
> 
> Bravo: That is the optimal institutional self-archiving policy.
> 
> > The main issue we have is that our
> > academics either never created an accepted version (aka 
> post-print) or 
> > never kept one when they had it.
> 
> This is only a problem for older articles. For recent, 
> current and future articles, all authors have their final 
> drafts, and those are the primary targets of OA.
> 
> > Often, it seems, the draft is submitted and then revisions are 
> > discussed in e-mails and telephone conversations, so only 
> the earliest 
> > draft ever existed, which is one that I can well understand 
> them not 
> > being comfortable with sharing, even if they kept it. Indeed, some 
> > have written their submitted version in a publisher's template so 
> > there is publisher copyright content from the earliest draft.
> 
> The solution is simple: If the corrections were not 
> incorporated in the author's last draft, scrape them from the 
> PDF proofs and convert them back to text in the postprint.
> 
> This is all just obvious scholarly practice in the online era.
> 
> > In such circumstances, it is difficult to persuade an 
> author that they 
> > need to create an accepted version for repository deposit, 
> > incorporating the changes later discussed: I don't know of a single 
> > author who has done that.
> 
> You need not. Leave it to scholarly practice. Unscholarly 
> authors will quickly realize that if they do not make sure 
> their OA version is correct, they will be incorrectly cited 
> and quoted. Just make sure they deposit their final drafts, 
> and enjoin them to make sure they contain the corrections, 
> and leave the rest to them. The institution is not the 
> publisher of the work, just a provider of supplementary access.
> 
> >  So, you can easily argue against academic resistance on the points 
> > you raised, but you can't force them to deposit if they're 
> too busy to 
> > consider it worth their while, if a suitable version never 
> existed (I 
> > feel that publishers are disingenous here in allowing deposit of 
> > versions that don't exist!) or if they're happy to sign away their 
> > copyright and delete early versions.
> 
> Publishers have nothing to do with this question, which is 
> simply on of practical scholarly practice. Don't worry about 
> it: individual practice will catch up with evolving scholarly 
> best practice in the OA age.
> 
> > You can hope to show that those who
> > do deposit are gaining reputation and citations over those 
> who don't, 
> > whilst over time it will become accepted practice to keep/create 
> > suitable versions to deposit in the repository (even to negotiate 
> > copyright agreements). Or you can make the academics an offer they 
> > can't
> > refuse: a mandate that is enforced... assuming that you have such 
> > powers
> > :-)
> 
> The mandate should be adopted in any case. And the deposited 
> postprint should be the one used for all assessment purposes. 
> Leave the rest to scholars' good sense...
> 
> 
> > From: Repositories discussion list
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of S Nieminen
> > Sent: 22 September 2008 07:25
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Author's final draft and citing
> >
> > 	How have your academics reacted to the fact that it is 
> often the 
> > un-paginated author's version that needs to be put in the 
> repository 
> > instead of the pretty publisher's version?
> 
> Pagination is a red herring. In quoting excerpts, specify 
> locus with section heading and paragraph number.
> 
> > I'm having to speak to a
> > number of people shortly and this will come up more and more. Some 
> > research staff are worried that the draft does not "look 
> good" or that 
> > they won't get cited from papers that have not page numbers  etc.
> 
> An OA postprint "looks" infinitely better than an 
> inaccessible publisher's PDF to would-users who cannot afford 
> access. And they certainly generate more citations (for the 
> canonical, published work).
> 
> > Research seems to show a great increase in number of 
> downloads for OA 
> > papers, however, are author draft versions getting cited more? How 
> > would this happen? Do people read the draft paper and THEN chase up 
> > the published version whether freely available or not?
> 
> No, they read and use the accessible draft and cite the 
> canonical published work.
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager