From: T Scott Plutchak <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:10:09 +0000 Related to this thread, NLM has just announced "versioning" of citations in PubMed: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/jf12/jf12_pm_versioning.html T. Scott Plutchak Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences University of Alabama at Birmingham [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]> 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? Sally Morris Email: [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: "Boyter, Leslie" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:25:51 -0800 Stevan, I am not saying anyone should be denied access to the author's version. I have no problem with OA. In fact, as someone with little to no access to expensive scientific journals, I am happy to be able to read any version I can get. I only have a problem with people implying they read the version of record (by citing it) when they really read and quoted the author's version. I do not necessarily have any particular attachment to the version of record, I just believe in being clear/straightforward/honest about what you actually read. I haven't had a chance to read the full response from Sean Andrews yet, but from what I was able to skim so far I agree with most of it. Citing the actual version you read (especially when there are many iterations) makes the most sense to me. If it was revamped after you read/cited it, at least the reader knows which version you read/quoted. Depending on the infrastructure and/or how the versions are posted/published, the prior versions may or may not be accessible anymore, so I may never be able to read what you read, but at least I know which version it was and why it may or may not differ from the version I am able to access. Yes, I may be idealistic, but I think accuracy in citation is an appropriate ideal. And it's not really that difficult to do (as compared to many other ideals). In fact, it's probably just as easy to cite what you read as it is to cite the version of record. So, you have my blessings to go forth with OA (as if my blessing matters anyway)... just cite what you actually read. ~Leslie -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:36:11 +0000 Straightforward question: Since the reason we are discussing authors' refereed, accepted final drafts versus publisher's copy-edited versions of record here is not to compare their relative merits but to determine what Open Access mandates should mandate, do those who point out (correctly) the (possible) shortcomings of the author's draft mean to imply that it is better that would-be users who are denied access to the publisher's version because their institutions cannot afford a subscription should be denied access to the author's version as well, because of the (possible) shortcomings of the author's draft? Because it is as simple as that; all the rest has nothing to do with the practical reality of Open Access (OA) but with scholarly ideals. If we are to reach 100% OA in this decade instead of losing another decade dithering, bickering and digressions, then research funders and research institutions need to mandate author self-archiving. The version with the least publisher restrictions on it is the author's final draft. Over 60% of journals, including most of the top journals, endorse immediate OA self-archiviong of the author's final draft, but not the publisher's version of record. (The rest don't endorse any form of immediate OA.) Are we, in turn, going to endorse this mandate (which -- so far adopted by only 200 institutions -- needs all the help it can get) or are we going to continue debating the relative merits of "that" versus "which"? Stevan Harnad