LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date:
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:27:33 -0400
Reply-To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:14:00 +0100

People on this list may have forgotten this rather important question from
Robert Kiley. At least I thought it was important especially because in my
experience many publishers are very poor at making clear on their sites
their policies regarding their VOR. I consulted with Ed Pentz of CrossRef.
Here is his reply:

"Robert's question is whether AOP and VOR are "identical" but the more
fundamental issue is whether the AOP is the VOR. I'm sure in some cases the
AOP and VOR are identical and in others they aren't - some publishers
probably consider the AOP the VOR while others don't. The key issue with
something having a CrossMark is that whatever the version the publisher is
committed to maintain it and use CrossMark to provide alerts of any MAJOR
changes that would effect the crediting or interpretation of the work.

CrossMark actually focuses on the "publisher-maintained version" which is
often the Version of Record but can be an AOP version. In the current
version of CrossMark there is no version statement or mention of "version of
record" since users didn't know what that meant and publishers had varying
meanings of it as well."

Ed has agreed for this reply to be made public and he is also on the list
and can answer follow up questions.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kiley, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:35:31 +0100

Dear List members

Does anyone know whether there is any difference between an "ahead of
print" (AOP) publication and a "version of record" (VOR) publication?
Typically an AOP article may not include metadata like issue and page
numbers - but other than this, can the AOP always be considered as
identical to the VoR?

I looked at the NISO Journal Article Versions document (
http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf) but couldn't see
any reference to the AOP version.

Many thanks
Robert

Robert Kiley
Head of Digital Services
Wellcome Library
mailto:[log in to unmask]
Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk

ATOM RSS1 RSS2