Re: Errors in author's versions

[David Groenewegen <david.groenewegen@lib.monash.edu.au>]

It occurred to me recently that one of the key differences 
between a post-print and a publisher version is going to be the 
page numbers. An author version will probably assume the first 
page as "1" (assuming they have put page numbers on at all), 
whereas the publisher version will use the numbers in sequence 
with the rest of the issue or volume. The publisher version may 
also insert the page breaks at different points, or use smaller 
fonts, double columns etc to fit more in. Further complicating 
this is the potential for a Word document (if that is what is 
stored in a repository) to have its page numbers changed by the 
act of being downloaded - the reader may choose a different font, 
paper size, margin setting (often without realising), which would 
further skew the pagination.

This is not an "error" of course, but it has the potential of 
making tracking the source of citations even trickier, as what is 
the correct page number on one version, could be quite different 
on another.

--
David Groenewegen
ARROW Project Manager
Monash University Library
Victoria 3800
AUSTRALIA
David.Groenewegen@lib.monash.edu.au


Cliff Morgan wrote:

> David Goodman wrote: "perhaps all the controversy is obsolete 
> about what version to deposit, and all the discussion about 
> exactly what name to use for what version."
>
> The published version may well differ considerably from the 
> author's accepted manuscript (known in SHERPA/RoMEO terminology 
> somewhat counterintuitively as the "post-print"). Sometimes the 
> variations are fairly trivial (e.g. conformance to journal 
> house style) but they can certainly go as far as substantive 
> editing, especially if the author is a non-native speaker. Both 
> Lisa Dittrich and Peter Banks have made this point - that you 
> can make no general pronouncements about whether subsequent 
> versions differ significantly or not: sometimes they do, 
> sometimes they don't, depending on the state of the author's 
> manuscript. There's no point in saying that the published 
> version *never* differs significantly nor that it *always* 
> differs significantly: the point is that it *probably* differs 
> in some way, and *may* differ profoundly.
>
> I have been a copy-editor; I have trained copy-editors; and I 
> have commissioned freelance copy-editors. I have rarely known a 
> manuscript to require no copy-editing, even if it's just the 
> reference list that needs styling. Many manuscripts have typos 
> or grammatical errors, and it is not uncommon to have figures 
> mentioned but not included, inconsistencies between reference 
> citations in the text and the details in the reference list, 
> etc. Increasingly, copy-editors are tagging information within 
> the text (such as grant numbers) that can be included in the 
> XML file to enrich the metadata.
>
> Any copy-editor will be able to tell you authors' errors that 
> they corrected that clearly improved the manuscript and 
> prevented embarrassment. (I've had an author write "80 PAs" 
> instead of "ATPase", and another refer to the well-known war 
> poet "Winifred Owen".) Do you really think that publishers 
> would pay for copy-editing if it didn't make any difference? (I 
> know that there are some publishers who do not make this 
> investment. Caveat lector.)
>
> Identifying versions does matter because versions do vary, and 
> using unambiguous terms to identify the different versions is 
> useful because it is not always clear what is meant when people 
> use terms such as "final edited version", for example.
>
> I am the Chair of the NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions of 
> Journal Articles (see 
> http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html); 
> David is a member of the Review Group and he will know that the 
> Technical WG has made recommendations on terminology and 
> definitions. We are currently reviewing the comments made by 
> the Review group.
>
> Other good work in this area is being done by the VERSIONS 
> project (see http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/).
>
> There is also a scoping study on repository version
> identification called RIVER - see
> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf
>
> These projects are clear in their view that identifying versions
> matters - although we may not all agree on the terminology and
> the granularity, we do agree on the principle of differentiation.
>
> The PMC distinctions remain pertinent.
>
> Cliff Morgan
> Chair NISO/ALPSP WG on JAV
> ____________________________
>
> David goodman 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