From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>

Is it universally agreed ( at least in our circles ) that the
expression "refereed final draft" must not mean what it would seem
linguistically to have to mean [ "draft" denoting, after all,
according to the lexicographers, "A first or preliminary form of any
writing, subject to revision, copying, etc." and "referee" meaning,
according to those lexicographers, "To judge as referee"], i.e. the
provisional version of a document as submitted to the peer reviewer
and which that peer reviewer has now judged, i.e. "refereed" -- that
it indeed, yes, must be understood not to mean that, but rather to
mean in fact "the ultimate version of a document as revised ( or,
possibly, not ) by the author in view of the referees' reactions to
the prior version ( i.e., to the "draft", properly speaking )
submitted to them" ?

At least I often see the expression used ( apparently ) in this latter
way on this list -- also in a posting here of just a couple of days
ago.

Just curious, and trying to get this straight for myself. I seem
vaguely to remember that someone once pleaded here for another term :
"accepted version" perhaps, a term which would appear scarcely open to
ambiguity or misunderstanding.

- Laval Hunsucker
 Antwerpen, België