From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:16:34 -0800

Even from my own personal experience I know that we are
by no means only talking "errors" here, that is to say e.g.
that some editors ( though they may not actively encourage
the practice ) certainly allow an author to make relatively
substantive albeit sometimes subtle alterations to his or her
article text even after the revised post-referee version has
been submitted and accepted and the article has entered the
initial copy-editing phase. My personal experience indicates
also that even the publisher's desk editor may, between the
time the author has seen her/his manuscript for the last time
and when it goes to the printer, make non-trivial alterations.

None of the above is meant to detract from Stevan Harnad's
very understandable points made earlier in this thread,
concerning "the reason we are discussing authors' refereed,
accepted final drafts versus publisher's copy-edited versions
of record here".

And not mentioned yet, I believe, is the version problem
arising from the fact that an article previously published
in a journal issue may later be taken up, in slightly or more
than slightly altered/updated form, into a collective work --
of the 'collected essays', "Studies in . . ." or "Companion
to . . ." etc. sort. It is not unusual that this republished
version achieves a much broader dissemination and becomes
much more broadly read than the initial journal version, the
[ ? ] 'version of record'. I at least have often been faced with
the choice whether to cite the republished version
( sometimes much more easily available ) or the original
published version ( which may have appeared in a relatively
obscure or highly specialized periodical ), for example in
cases where the alterations implemented in the former are
irrelevant to the purpose of my citation. Or, . . . both ?  Of
course such situations are less likely to arise in the "hard"
sciences than in other scholarly fields.

- Laval Hunsucker
 Swarthmore, PA, USA

----- Original Message -----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:51:44 -0600
>
> I think Green OA versions are fine for various purposes including
> classroom use and general information purposes, but I think it is
> dangerous for scholarship to cite Green OA versions instead of
> versions of record because of significant errors (such as in
> quotations) that such Green OA versions may contain (as revealed in a
> survey several volunteer copyeditors did of DASH repository articles
> for a special issue of Against the Grain last year).
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>>  From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:18:07 +0000
>>
>>  Surely it is obvious that the great majority of scholars would wish to know
>>  whether there has been a retraction or correction to the definitive version
>>  of the article. For Professor Harnad this may be irrelevant - see his last
>>  sentence. He has one purpose in life (it would seem) and that is the
>>  achievement of total open access as quickly as possible. Lots of other
>>  people live in the present and want to extend knowledge in the present
> using
>>  what the present mixed systems of access offer them.
>>
>>  Anthony
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  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