Re: Versions

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Anthony,

The version of record is the one that has been published by BioMed Central
and deposited by BioMed Central in any of the archives with which it has
an official arrangement. There is no problem if they have a different HTML
appearance in those archives -- and they do -- as long as the text,
figures, and additional files (videos, 3D, datasets, et cetera) are
exactly the same.

I don't think that what you call 'vanilla' is what we publish as the final
version. As soon as an article is accepted after peer review (in the
overwhelming majority of cases involving at least one round of revision),
we publish the provisional version (essentially the author's manuscript,
perhaps your 'vanilla' version), which is usually in a week or so replaced
by a fully XML-coded and where necessary corrected final version, and made
available in HTML as well as fully laid-out in two-columns for printing in
the form of a PDF (obviously, the increasingly appended and available
video, 3D and data-files cannot be rendered in a PDF). Take a look at any
of the journals on our site to see what it all looks like:
www.biomedcentral.com

Best,

Jan

On 15 Jun 2004, at 22:38, Anthony Watkinson wrote:

> I did not believe that Jan had actually coined this phrase but I have
> checked and he did and what a good term "minutes of science" is. As he
> points out science is built on previous knowledge.
>
> I have a question for him and for this list. For Professor Harnad and 
> his disciplines the authentic form of the message of the scientist is 
> the postprint (as he has named it) - the form of the message that has
> (finally) been accepted for publication. This is the so-called vanilla
> form. BMC publish this vanilla form. PLOS and the great majority of 
> other refereed journals go through another iteration before publishing. 
> It is called "copy-editing" - an unfortunate term because somehow it 
> makes one thinks of correcting references and putting in commas. Of 
> course correcting references is necessary to make linking possible. 
> Putting in commas irons out ambiguities. There are also (as I am sure 
> PLOS staff) would agree major work necessary to get the paper in final 
> form after the peer review has done its work. PLOS would not have gone 
> for this extra expence if they did not find that their community wanted 
> this extra  work.
>
> My question for Jan and others is - what is the authentic form of the
> minutes when there are two versions with some sort of external
> creditation. There is the version in the institutional repository,
> accepted by those who run those repositories, and there is the 
> "published" version. I would suggest that authors see the published 
> version as the authentic version (though I have no evidence for that 
> other than what the authors and editors say to me and to other 
> publishers). This is clearly not a question for BMC because the versions 
> are identical but what do PLOS and its supporters think?
>
> Anthony Watkinson