From: "Kunda, Sue" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:49:48 -0800
Yes, I'd like to see more information about this as it's an issue I've
struggled with as an IR manager for some time now. When we deposit an
author's post-print into the IR we add a citation based on the
publisher's version, which goes against what I was taught. It seems to
me we should create a citation for the actual deposited version. If
the user then wants to cite the version in the IR as if they've read
the "version of record" that's up to them (although, personally, I
would contact the author for the version of record if I decided I was
going to cite the research in an article and didn't have access to the
journal).
Sue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Kunda | Digital Scholarship Librarian | Assistant Professor
Oregon State University – Valley Library |121 The Valley Library |
Corvallis OR 97331
p: 541-737-7262 | [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:49:59 -0800
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Refereed Draft - definitions
From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:49:18 -0500
I was always trained to cite the version consulted but I discovered in
the Physics community, even if the submitted article cites ArXiv,
several of the publishers will change the citations over to the
journal citations in the final editing process. I learned of this from
a physics blogger (was it Chad Orzel?). It seems a bit sketchy to me
and it also seems to deflate the citations to ArXiv. I have not done
any study to see how prevalent this is.
Christina
----
Christina K Pikas
Librarian
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
[log in to unmask]
(240) 228 4812 (DC area)
(443) 778 4812 (Baltimore area)
-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
From: Brian Harrington <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:18:50 -0500
On 02/07/2012 06:48 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: Stevan Harnad<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:37:01 -0500
(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.)
Maybe I'm just pedantic, but shouldn't the version accessed be the
version cited? Admittedly, in the humanities fields I'm most familiar
with, citation is often accompanied by quotation, or at least
references to page numbers, so the need to consult the
version-of-record seems self-evident. But even granting different
citation practices in other fields, the idea of citing something that
you haven't actually seen strikes me as going too far. If the
refereed final draft is the only version that the researcher needs to
consult, why not cite it? This seems especially true if the draft is
the version that the reader is more likely to have access to.
Brian
--
Brian Harrington
Content Development Coordinator
Project MUSE
The Johns Hopkins University Press
[log in to unmask]
|
