From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:37:01 -0500

The author's final draft is the refereed, revised version, accepted
for publication. The publisher's version is the "version of record":
http://crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html

For Open Access purposes, both of these are called "postprints" (with
the "post" referring to the refereeing: "post-refereeing"). The
author's pre-refereeing drafts(s) are called "preprints":
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint

The reason Green Open Access Mandates specify that the author's
(refereed, revised, accepted) final draft is what must be deposited is
that it has far fewer restrictions on it than the publisher's version
of record. Over 60% of journals (including most of the top journals)
already endorse immediate (un-embargoed) OA self-archiving of the
author's refereed, revised final draft -- but not the publisher's
version-of-record.

(Contrary to the intuitions of many well-meaning librarians, the
difference between access denial and open access to the author's
refereed final draft is the difference between night and day for
researchers: http://bit.ly/OAnite It is a great strategic mistake to
insist on the version-of-record, or to worry that the author's
refereed final draft is somehow not "good enough". It is infinitely
preferable to no access: But what is cited is of course always the
archival version-of-record. The OA version is merely the version
accessed.)

There are many variants of these terms, including "definitive version"
for the publisher's version-of-record and "personal version" for the
author's final version. No term covers all nuances, but stretching the
descriptor to "author's refereed draft" covers the essentials.

Stevan Harnad

On 2012-02-06, at 7:56 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Is it universally agreed ( at least in our circles ) that the
> expression "refereed final draft" must not mean what it would seem
> linguistically to have to mean [ "draft" denoting, after all,
> according to the lexicographers, "A first or preliminary form of any
> writing, subject to revision, copying, etc." and "referee" meaning,
> according to those lexicographers, "To judge as referee"], i.e. the
> provisional version of a document as submitted to the peer reviewer
> and which that peer reviewer has now judged, i.e. "refereed" -- that
> it indeed, yes, must be understood not to mean that, but rather to
> mean in fact "the ultimate version of a document as revised ( or,
> possibly, not ) by the author in view of the referees' reactions to
> the prior version ( i.e., to the "draft", properly speaking )
> submitted to them" ?
>
> At least I often see the expression used ( apparently ) in this latter
> way on this list -- also in a posting here of just a couple of days
> ago.
>
> Just curious, and trying to get this straight for myself. I seem
> vaguely to remember that someone once pleaded here for another term :
> "accepted version" perhaps, a term which would appear scarcely open to
> ambiguity or misunderstanding.
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
>  Antwerpen, België