From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:45:34 -0700
Why will publishers agree to this scheme?
Peer-review is the most important service they provide ... for nothing?
Ari Belenkiy
SFU
Canada
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:24:50 +0000
>
> Experience suggests that the value added to a peer-reviewed manuscript
> by a copy-editor varies considerably. If the peer-reviewers have done
> their job, any false facts or illogicality in the research arguments
> should have been picked up. Precision of language and grammar are
> important but an author may have as good a grasp of language and
> grammar as a copy-editor. I am not suggesting that copy-editors do not
> play any role in the quality of the published article, but quality
> lies to a greater extent in the quality of the research reported in
> the article than it does in copy-editing. The question we have to face
> is whether the variable value added by a publisher through
> copy-editing or any other service is worth the substantial sum a
> publisher charges for such services. How much is using the services of
> a publisher worth?
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Mark Goodwin <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:16:21 -0400
>
> Ah, so *not* the "final" version, but the penultimate version (post
> peer review, at acceptance, pre-copyedit).
>
> That is, the rough manuscript version that has not yet passed a
> rigorous copyedit for facts, logical structure, and precision of
> language, not to mention grammar, etc., irrespective of whatever
> typesetting or formatting may be applied for public consumption.
>
> (apologies for the intentional smug tone...)
>
> Ever and always, a Copy Editor at heart... -Mark
>
> M. L. Goodwin, ELS ([log in to unmask])
> Editorial Manager, Publications
> The American Physiological Society
> Bethesda, MD 20814
> http://www.The-APS.org
>
> Integrating the Life Sciences from Molecule to Organism
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Iris Brest <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:11:31 -0700
>
> Sandy -- They will be the version of accepted articles post peer review.
>
> 9. What version of their article should Faculty submit to the repository?
>
> The policy requires that the author submit the "final version", which
> safely means the manuscript copy post-peer review but before a
> publisher typesets and finalizes it.
>
> Iris Brest/Stanford University
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:59:52 -0500
>
> > All research publications
> > covered by the policy will continue to be subjected to rigorous peer
> > review; they will still appear in the most prestigious journals across
> > all fields; and they will continue to meet UC's standards of high
> > quality.
>
> Just wondering if the "standards of high quality" include high quality
> in copyediting? Will UC be paying to have the accepted articles
> copyedited before they are posted in eScholarship? If not, how can
> this promise of "high quality" be made? Does UC think copyediting not
> important? Do all UC faculty write pristine prose that is free of
> errors?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
|
