RE: "Accepted Manuscript"

["Morgan, Cliff - Chichester" <cmorgan@wiley.com>]

This sounds like a Proof, not the Accepted Manuscript. As you 
note, the Proof has benefited from even more publisher investment 
(copy-editing, typesetting/page composition, possibly artwork 
redrawing or labelling, DOI assignment for reference linking) 
than the Accepted Manuscript (which benefits from the journal 
"brand" and systemic investment in the peer review process).

As the Chair of the NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Journal Article 
Versions, I am very pleased that Phil endorses our terminology 
(see http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf). This 
avoids the ambiguity resident in terms such as "final accepted 
manuscript". The Accepted Manuscript in our terminology is *the* 
version that is accepted for publication - it is a self-defining 
term and doesn't need any confusing qualifiers such as "final".

Cliff Morgan


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Behalf Of Hamaker, Charles
Sent: 20 March 2009 21:46
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: "Accepted Manuscript"

I think this is confusing re the final "accepted Manuscript" . 
Isn't that often a version of the publisher's pdf? I know when 
I've written for the major publishers in my field, I get back for 
a semi-final version one with corrections from the publisher, it 
looks like a typeset or pdf version, to do final corrections on. 
Is that version archivable in my institution's IR?

Chuck Hamaker

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Phil Davis
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:29 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: New Report: Publishers allow more than authors think

As was covered today in the Scholarly Kitchen [1], I think the
main contribution of this report is the synthesis of several
prior studies and the analysis of why there is a disjoint between
publisher contracts and what authors believe they can do.

Morris offers some practical suggestions, such as detailing what
the author can do with the PDF *directly* on a PDF copy and not
on a separate author instruction document.

The term 'postprint' which Harnad and others define as any form
of the document that has been accepted for publication is also
confusing (especially when dealing with digital documents) and
should be tossed for less ambiguous terminology like "Accepted
Manuscript" and "Version of Record."

see: Publisher Rights, Author Perceptions

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/03/19/publisher-rights-author-pe
rceptions/

--Phil Davis

Publishing Research Consortium wrote:

> Publishers' agreements are more liberal than journal authors
> think, but do not allow self-archiving of the published PDF.
>
> The Publishing Research Consortium has published another in its
> series of reports:  Journal Authors' Rights:  perception and
> reality (Summary Paper 5)...