On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Arthur Sale <[email protected]> wrote:
Stevan
Â
There is no need to exaggerate.
Â
Clearly from the point of view of a reader, the Accepted Manuscript
(NISO terminology) is better than no article at all. Equally
clearly, the Version of Record (again NISO terminology) is better
still. From the point of view of providing access then, then the
preferences for mandatory deposits are (1) the AM as soon as sent
off to publisher, (2) followed by the VoR at publication time if the
author did not an agreement giving up rights in it. It is worth
noting that in most jurisdictions, publishers have no automatic
rights in a VoR any different from the AM. They depend on the
copyright transfer agreement to control the VoR.
This is very useful to know the precise terminology.
I recently discovered some examples, such as
http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~sxs98ltb/chambersLobbButlerHarveyTraill.pdf
This manuscript contains the phase "Authorâs Accepted Manuscript". Does GOAL
know or can it speculate usefully who added this phrase. Is it done by the
author (seems unlikely), the publisher, or an institutional repository?
Similarly in my previous mail to GOALÂ I gave the example of a manuscript in
Pubmed which appeared to be a AM but contained phraseology which appeared to
have sections added by or at the request of the publisher.
I am simply asking for factual information.
P.
Â
Â
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
