Re: Errors in author's versions

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

I wouldn't say that the well-crafted statement from PLoS is no 
longer pertinent. I would say that it is not yet pertinent, 
unless and until a significant number of pre- or post-prints in 
clinical medicine are placed in institutional repositories (a 
step that I hope never happens, but likely will).

On 7/13/06 4:51 PM, "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu> wrote:

> I appreciate Peter's mentioning this, for I have only with
> considerable effort found enough to study.
>
> Given our observations that such author-copy pre- or postprints
> rarely occur (at least in some subjects), perhaps all the
> controversy is obsolete about what version to deposit, and all
> the discussion about exactly what name to use for what version.
>
> Peter, I gather then that you agree that such distinctions as in
> http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/about/authorms.html
>
> "The final manuscript supplied to PMC is the version that the
> journal accepted for publication, including any revisions that
> the author made during the peer review process. The published
> version of the article usually includes additional changes made
> by the journal's editorial staff after acceptance of the author's
> final manuscript. These edits may be limited to matters of style
> and format or they could include more substantive changes made
> with the concurrence of the author."
>
> are no longer pertinent.
>
> It would be very encouraging to see at least one of the OA
> controversial points finally resolved.
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
>
> dgoodman@liu.edu
> dgoodman@princeton.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Peter Banks
> Sent: Tue 7/11/2006 9:26 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Errors in author's versions
>
> The problem with your hypotheses today is that they cannot be
> tested. In clinical medicine, it is rare to find post-prints or
> pre-preprints posted in repositories. That could change in the
> future, though I suspect not, because authors themselves probably
> won't want anything less than than their most proofed and
> polished work available.
>
> Suppose, however, that clinical medical articles were widely
> available in pre- or post-print forms. It is likely that any
> dangerous mistake that found its way into usage and resulted in
> harm would be a rare event. The fact that there is a very small,
> though finite, potential for harm is not an argument for the
> failure to exercise due diligence by distributing only that
> information that is as carefully reviewed and refined as
> possible. In every field--whether engineering, aviation, or
> medicine--we check and cross check information to guard against
> the possibility of a highly improbable yet potentially
> catastrophic event.
>
> Peter Banks
> Banks Publishing Publications Consulting and Services
> Fairfax, VA 22030
> pbanks@bankspub.com