From: Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:52:27 -0500

Oh, oh, oh, version control.  VERSION CONTROL.  This is so huge in
government documents (the only thing I work with), and almost no one
doing publishing platforms seems aware of it.

What's great about a version of record is there is only one version,
and you don't have to be paranoid and check which one you are dealing
with.

For people working with IRs, how often is there a revision?  I would
imagine it's rare, but some way to track version control would nail
down prevalence (and discourage changes, because tracking can get
cumbersome fast).

-Wilhelmina Randtke


On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:44:37 -0500
>
> > From: Sally Morris on Liblicence
> > 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?
>
> Date/Version read is helpful, feasible, advisable -- but a
> straightforward matter of scholarly practice (which will not be
> decided on the liblicense Forum!).
>
> My comments are only about the bearing of the versions question on OA
> and OA mandates.
>
> In particular:
>
> "Is accessing, quoting and citing the author's refereed, revised,
> accepted final draft good enough for scholars and scientists when they
> are denied access to the publisher's version-of-record, because they
> or their institution cannot afford subscription/license/pay-per-view
> access?"
>
> The answer is a resounding, unambiguous, unequivocal  "YES".
>
> All the rest is irrelevant,  and just equivocation or question-begging.
>
> Stevan Harnad