"Any differences between the final, refereed, revised draft
(postprint) and the copy-edited version of record will be minor.
And the foremost thing to keep in mind is that both for the
would-be user whose institution cannot afford subscription
access, and for the author, as well as for research progress
itself, access to the author's final, refereed, revised postprint
is always infinitely preferable to no access at all. To deny
(or foreswear) access altogether unless one can have access
to the publisher's PDF is something that no serious researcher
would ever knowingly do; it is only failure to connect the dots
that keeps researchers from immediately doing the obvious
-- and that is precisely what green open access mandates
from their institutions and funders are needed for.'
Authors worry about this needlessly; and of course publishers keep
stoking author worries about this, self-servingly (FUD). But after all
these years I hope most people now know better.
In, Jacobs, N (ed.) Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic
Aspects. Chandos.
But after more than a decade, I hope most people
On 2012-08-10, at 6:46 AM, Garret McMahon wrote:
If the rationale behind this is to give cover to the publisher in the event of a discrepancy between the author's manuscript and the journal copy of record it also creates some doubt about the credibility of the former because of the implication that the peer-review recommendations may not have been incorporated into the copy. Sowing the seeds of doubt around the veracity of the open copy has an adverse effect not only on the reader but also Green OA advocacy in support of an institutional open access policy.
Regards,
Garret
On 9 August 2012 17:29, Kornbrot, Diana
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Its 99.9% ok
Sometimes the proof editors find minor problems missed byreferees
Best
DianaDear 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]" target="_blank">[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]" target="_blank">[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.
Emeritus Professor Diana Kornbrot
email: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
web: http://dianakornbrot.wordpress.com/
Work
School of Psychology
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK
voice: +44 (0) 170 728 4626
fax: +44 (0) 170 728 5073
Home
19 Elmhurst Avenue
London N2 0LT, UK
voice: +44 (0) 208 444 2081
mobile: +44 (0) 740 318 1612
fax: +44 (0) 870 706 1445
