Re: Versions

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

Jan has picked up on an ambiguity in what I wrote. In the case of BMC,
because they do not copy edit, there is no difference in the content. At
least I thought that was the case but there is now the tantalising
suggestion of some intervention - "where necessary corrected final
version".

How different is this final version and is that the authentic version and,
if the author has (as urged) deposited the postprint should he or she then
replace it?

I was however not asking Jan about BMC practices but how he viewed the
version problem that impacts on what other publishers do where the
deposited version in an institutional repository (if it is the postprint)
will be different from the final published version.

The great majority of other publishers, including PLOS, do copy editing,
not because for some reason they want to add to their costs, but because
that is what their editors and authors appear to want. They say they do.
The editors I work with would probably resign (and even take their
editorial boards with them) if we dropped this service. I have to say
"probably" because have not proposed this but editors and editorial boards
at editorial board meetings seem to equate good copyediting as equivalent
to added value.BMC experience is clearly different otherwise they would
not get editors and authors.

It may seem that I am trying to score points off OA protagonists but I do
think there is a question here which is not actually an OA/anti OA
question. If anyone is interested in problems of authenticity see
www.bic.org.uk/securing%20authenticity.pdf

Anthony


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Velterop" <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Versions

> 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