From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:22:03 +0000 There is a standardised form of wording See NISO 'recommended practice' at http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Email: [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum Sent: 07 February 2012 00:57 Subject: Refereed Draft - definitions 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