Re: Errors in author's versions

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Two separate points under discussion here, no?  First is the 
question of whether publishers add value through one aspect of 
the editing process, sometimes and incorrectly called 
copy-editing.  This is the editing that takes place AFTER a 
manuscript is accepted for publication.  While this debate has 
been raging, I wandered over to my wife's desk, where she, a 
medical editor, spends the day reworking obscure language, 
sometimes rewriting paragraphs and often entire articles, 
checking and formatting citations, checking Web links, etc. This 
material routinely goes back and forth between editor and author 
until a final version is produced. When I told her that many 
people question the editorial value that a publisher brings to 
STM articles, she looked up at me as though to say, "You must be 
kidding!"  This is Anthony's point, and it is correct.

Now there is the question of whether there are significant errors 
in OA material that does not exist in the authorized version of 
the same material as made available from the publisher.  Trick 
question.  Which version of the editing ultimately appears in an 
OA repository?  If the first, boy! I hope my doctor isn't working 
from that.  The second?  Still risky.  The third? Sorry, but I am 
cautious about this kind of thing.  It's the final, except for 
being rendered as a PDF (typically from a Microsoft Word file). 
Well, that's okay, though how do I know that?

I personally am not aware of any harm that has come to a patient 
at the hands of a doctor who worked with an OA copy of an article 
where there was a materially corrected version available from a 
publisher.  This is David's point, and it is correct.

The difficult question is, What would happen if the OA article 
were entirely unedited?  If the publisher doesn't continue to 
carry the cost of this work, who will?  OA thus depends on a 
vibrant *and profitable* publishing sector to secure the quality 
of even OA repositories.  We can say that publications cost too 
much, that some publishers are pigs, that not all authors require 
the same amount of editorial attention, and so on, but don't say 
that publishers do not add value.  It's simply not so.

Joe Esposito

On 7/24/06, David Goodman <David.Goodman@liu.edu> wrote:

> Dear Anthony,
>
> I have no intention of influencing the US government-- it is 
> perhaps the furthest thing from my thoughts. Do not confuse me 
> with those who do.
>
> You have told me about editors' salaries, and indicated evidence,
> and so have others, and I then agree my previous undersanding was
> incorrect.
>
> But the argument against author copies presented here by some
> biomedical societies was about serious scientific errors, and I
> will believe such an error when the citations to the print and OA
> versions are given, or similar physical data produced.
>
> It is not only you and I both who have failed to find them. There
> are several hundred people reading this list who are in a
> position to know of any. There were some postings that there
> might conceivably be such errors in the future. I take that as an
> admission that they too have not found any now.
>
> Anthony, I would not accept anyone's word in place of possible
> data, whether or not it confirms my prejudices. I should never
> have deserved the doctorate you keep mentioning if I worked
> otherwise.
>
> David Goodman
> dgoodman@princeton.edu
>
> I see no reason to post again on this topic, except to discuss
> something that exists.