Re: "Accepted Manuscript"

[Greg Tananbaum <gtananbaum@gmail.com>]

This version terminology question is a fascinating one.  Imagine 
how an author must feel when asked to navigate through a thicket 
that not even top scholarly communication professionals can 
neatly traverse. What version can he/she deposit in a repository 
or on a personal page while staying within the bounds a 
publisher's copyright agreement?

Or picture the confusion within the mind of a researcher, perhaps 
an undergraduate or graduate student, as he/she struggles to 
determine whether the paper just downloaded from Google is the 
"actual article" or some lesser version.  We have created a bit 
of a bog here, an unfortunate byproduct of a perhaps noble 
attempt to increase access to information.  Efforts such as the 
NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Journal Article Versions are a good 
attempt to bring clarity to the issue, but I can't imagine the 
harried author or the inexperienced researcher has any real grasp 
of the definitional subtleties at this point.

Ideally, we would consider affixing a canned definition on these 
repository files (e.g., "The following paper is the 'Accepted 
Manuscript' version.  It has been accepted for publication in a 
journal. Content and layout, follow publisher's submission 
requirements.").  However, I am not at all confident we can (a) 
get posting authors to understand the subtle distinctions between 
versions, and (b) get them to care enough to take the extra 
effort.  We are thus left with the prospect of adding another 
administrative level to the depositing protocol if we want to 
"fix" this.

Best, Greg

Greg Tananbaum
Consulting Services at the Intersection of Technology, Content, & Academia
(510) 295-7504
greg@scholarnext.com
http://www.scholarnext.com