From: "Boyter, Leslie" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:47:52 -0800
My two cents--
I think this is a frightening practice:
>(4) One can quote from the OA version (which is usually identical to the version-of-record, apart from minor copy-editing).
Can you imagine the "minor copy-editing" required for an article that
might completely change the meaning of a sentence or paragraph? I can.
I have seen a ridiculous number of papers written by people that leave
out "minor" words. The author does not see it because (s)he reads the
sentences, paragraphs, etc as (s)he means them (not as they are
actually written).
Little things, like the word "not" being left out of a sentence,
COMPLETELY change the meaning of a sentence. You can assume the reader
will understand, based on context, that "not" should be there.
However, if the paper is plagued with "minor" errors like this, it
could be entirely misunderstood (or, rather, understood as it is
written and not as it is meant).
If you are going to cite the version of record, you better read the
version of record. If you are only going to read the OA version, cite
the OA version. At the very least, please do the following:
>(7) One can (and should) add to the canonical citation the URL of the OA version.
Don't get me wrong, I realize editors/proofreaders miss things too (I
have seen a number of edited articles, textbooks, etc containing
errors that cause confusion). I just think if you are going to cite
something, you better read it first. You never know what changes might
be made, minor or not, between the version you are reading and the
version of record. They very well may be important changes.
~Leslie R Boyter
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:42:01 -0500
On 2012-02-08, at 9:41 PM, Brian Harrington wrote:
> 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.
(1) The OA version is for would-be users who do not have access to the
version-of-record because their universities cannot afford access.
(2) For such users, OA means the difference between being able to
read, use, apply and cite an article, or being unable to do so.
(3) The reason the refereed final draft is the version that OA
mandates specify is that it has fewer publisher restrictions
(copyright, embargoes) on it than does the version-of-record..
(4) One can quote from the OA version (which is usually identical to
the version-of-record, apart from minor copy-editing).
(5) The locus of quotes can beindicated by section headings and
paragraph numbers when page numbers are unavailable.
(6) One reads and quotes from the version one has accessed (whether
the paper journal on the shelf, the publisher's archival version, a
photocopy, or the author's refereed final draft), but one cites the
canonical version-of-record in all cases.
(7) One can (and should) add to the canonical citation the URL of the
OA version.
Stevan Harnad
|
