Re: Embargoes on Deposit in Repositories

[David Prosser <david.prosser@rluk.ac.uk>]

Cliff

a) I never claimed that I was a model of clarity.  Just that 
Sandy's description added ambiguity rather than removing it.

b) If it makes it easier to understand then please do replace 
'authors' manuscript' with 'Author's Original and/or Submitted 
Manuscript Under Review and/or Accepted Manuscript'.

c) There are indeed differences between pre- and post-refereed 
versions, but the OAWG statement applies to both.  Hence my 
shorthand.

Best wishes

David


On 1 Apr 2011, at 01:09, Morgan, Cliff - Chichester wrote:

> Having mentioned the authors' unrefereed manuscript versus the
> authors' refereed manuscript distinction, you then seem to think
> that referring to "authors' manuscripts" is a model of clarity.
>
> There is quite a difference between unrefereed and refereed
> manuscripts when it comes to third-party investment in the peer
> review process, its management, and journal branding.
>
> Why not follow the NISO/ALPSP recommended terms "Author's
> Original" and "Accepted Manuscript"?
>
> Cliff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Prosser [mailto:david.prosser@rluk.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:57 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: Embargoes on Deposit in Repositories
>
> I think that Sandy's attempts at clarity risk confusing matters.
> 'Green OA versions' can mean anything from authors' unrefereed
> manuscripts, authors' refereed manuscripts, or even the final
> 'version of record' (there are some publishers, not many but
> some, who allow the author to deposit the publishers' PDF - see
> http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.html for details).
>
> The OAIG statement I drew attention to is about authors'
> manuscripts, exactly as I said.
>
> David