From: T Scott Plutchak <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:10:09 +0000
Related to this thread, NLM has just announced "versioning" of
citations in PubMed:
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/jf12/jf12_pm_versioning.html
T. Scott Plutchak
Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:28:18 +0000
Unless you also provide the date when you read it, people may not know
whether a correction/retraction/whatever had been appended to the VoR
at that time?
Sally Morris
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: "Boyter, Leslie" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:25:51 -0800
Stevan,
I am not saying anyone should be denied access to the author's
version. I have no problem with OA. In fact, as someone with little to
no access to expensive scientific journals, I am happy to be able to
read any version I can get.
I only have a problem with people implying they read the version of
record (by citing it) when they really read and quoted the author's
version. I do not necessarily have any particular attachment to the
version of record, I just believe in being
clear/straightforward/honest about what you actually read.
I haven't had a chance to read the full response from Sean Andrews
yet, but from what I was able to skim so far I agree with most of it.
Citing the actual version you read (especially when there are many
iterations) makes the most sense to me. If it was revamped after you
read/cited it, at least the reader knows which version you
read/quoted. Depending on the infrastructure and/or how the versions
are posted/published, the prior versions may or may not be accessible
anymore, so I may never be able to read what you read, but at least I
know which version it was and why it may or may not differ from the
version I am able to access.
Yes, I may be idealistic, but I think accuracy in citation is an
appropriate ideal. And it's not really that difficult to do (as
compared to many other ideals). In fact, it's probably just as easy to
cite what you read as it is to cite the version of record.
So, you have my blessings to go forth with OA (as if my blessing
matters anyway)... just cite what you actually read.
~Leslie
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:36:11 +0000
Straightforward question:
Since the reason we are discussing authors' refereed, accepted final
drafts versus publisher's copy-edited versions of record here is not
to compare their relative merits but to determine what Open Access
mandates should mandate, do those who point out (correctly) the
(possible) shortcomings of the author's draft mean to imply that it is
better that would-be users who are denied access to the publisher's
version because their institutions cannot afford a subscription should
be denied access to the author's version as well, because of the
(possible) shortcomings of the author's draft?
Because it is as simple as that; all the rest has nothing to do with
the practical reality of Open Access (OA) but with scholarly ideals.
If we are to reach 100% OA in this decade instead of losing another
decade dithering, bickering and digressions, then research funders and
research institutions need to mandate author self-archiving. The
version with the least publisher restrictions on it is the author's
final draft. Over 60% of journals, including most of the top journals,
endorse immediate OA self-archiviong of the author's final draft, but
not the publisher's version of record. (The rest don't endorse any
form of immediate OA.)
Are we, in turn, going to endorse this mandate (which -- so far
adopted by only 200 institutions -- needs all the help it can get) or
are we going to continue debating the relative merits of "that" versus
"which"?
Stevan Harnad
|
