Dear Garret,
> The accepted manuscript is the only version of the in-press
> copy that Elsevier will allow for repository deposit via
> Green OA. I have always worked on the assumption that this
> copy does in fact incorporate all of the changes that have
> been recommended by the peer-review process. Am I mistaken?
It can and it should. I suspect that while such changes can be included in the version, since Elsevier - or any publisher - is not in control of the version, they insist on this caveat being included to absolve themselves if differences are found.
As the author's final version - and therefore, theoretically, the author's own approved choice of words with any later changes being unauthorised by them - some might take this version as authoratative. It is interesting that being stated in this way, the paragraph may end up seeming to put some distance between the version one can get for free and the publisher's version and introduce doubt as to the trustability of the free one: note the assumption of where "definitive" lies. But I am sure that is coincidental.
Regards,
Bill
--
Bill Hubbard
Head of Centre for Research Communications
http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk
University of Nottingham
Tel +44(0) 115 846 7657
* * * * * * * *
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Garret McMahon
> Sent: 09 August 2012 15:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Elsevier's systematic distribution notice
>
> I'm currently data cleansing prior to the launch of the QUB
> research portal (repository) and I wanted to associate a
> rights statement with a particular item record (beautifully
> accommodated in PURE : Atira). Elsevier's systematic
> distribution notice reads:
>
> _NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was
> accepted for publication in <Journal title>. Changes
> resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review,
> editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other
> quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this
> document. Changes may have been made to this work since it
> was submitted for publication. A definitive version was
> subsequently published in PUBLICATION, [VOL#, ISSUE#, (DATE)] DOI#_
>
> Here's the sentence I'm having trouble with:
>
> Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer
> review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and
> other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document
>
> The accepted manuscript is the only version of the in-press
> copy that Elsevier will allow for repository deposit via
> Green OA. I have always worked on the assumption that this
> copy does in fact incorporate all of the changes that have
> been recommended by the peer-review process. Am I mistaken?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Garret McMahon
>
> Institutional Repository Officer
>
> The McClay Library
>
> Queen's University Belfast
>
> BT7 1LP
>
>
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> Telephone: +44 28 9097 6163 <tel:%2B44%2028%209097%206163>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|