From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:33:38 +0000 I think maybe instead of comparing versions to software versions which may have more or less opaque "security updates", it would be more appropriate to compare to law or standards. Standards often have redline versions you can license and some of these also have explanatory information about the change. Likewise, some code and government instructions have lines on the side and an index of updates in the front. To the original purpose- unpaywall is an excellent tool that gets you to some full text which mostly serves the purpose. If the searcher would rather pay $35-75 for a pretty copy, then can still do so with very little time lost. Christina (not speaking for my employer, of course) ------ Christina K. Pikas, BS, MLS, PhD Librarian The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Baltimore: 443.778.4812 D.C.: 240.228.4812 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:30:06 -0400 Ann Okerson's question is important and actually reaches well beyond its ostensible target. The development of digital publishing leads to a deep transformation in the nature of documents. Software writing was the first area where this issue arose. Interestingly, and probably because the field of software writing was unencumbered by previous, legacy habits, programmers developed techniques that could track versions in a flexible and agile manner. We are now all used to grappling with version 7.3 (or whatever) of software X, and think nothing of it. "Requests for comments" (RFC), as developed and used by the IETF in the context of the technical developments of the Internet, followed a similar philosophy, while applying it to straight texts, not software. Print forced us, a long time ago, to fix and harden what was being published. It also foregrounded a vision of documents that depended on techniques now embedded in critical editions: each critical edition stands for eternity until a new critical edition challenges it, and the result is a staccato mode of evolution that worked well with print, but appears increasingly out of step with the potentials of digital documents (especially with the inclusion of data sets and software). Scientific and scholarly articles as they evolved through print (and survive as PDF files, which is about as close to print as a digital file can be - true digital incunabula, to use G. Crane's clever image) also force the staccato mode of conversation and debate that still dominates in scientific and scholarly circles. This leads to a very inefficient way to feed the "Great Conversation" of science. With digital documents, what we need is an orderly system of versions similar to what is used in software. In so doing, we no longer have to grapple with any version "of record"; instead, we have to deal with a time-driven succession of documents that can be easily identified if the version system is well designed. Normally, the penultimate version should be the most reliable, and the latest should be the cutting edge solution that is on the chopping block for the next round of Popperian-style refutations. Sometimes, the latest version adds little to the previous one, but corrects minor problems; sometimes, it is a real advance; sometimes it is a huge step forward. The numbering system can reflect all of this, while keeping the history of a certain thread of thought. Contributions to any document, however small or large, so long as it is accepted, can be attributed to various individuals. Free software shows how such an approach can be extended to a broadly distributed system of contributors (which science and scholarship, in general terms, are). If academic libraries, with their repositories, begin collaboratively (and in a distributed manner) to develop a peer-review system - somewhat like the F1000 approach to reviewing - then, the issue of filtering unwanted materials and noise also begins to find a solution. Metadata can incorporate versions. Therefore, retrievability , discoverability, as well as visibility issues can be addressed as well. In fact, unpaywall, which is a wonderful tool by the way, could be tweaked to take charge of the version issue, if a good version system can be developed. OpenAIRE could be a good place to develop such a system. Put all of this within the context of platforms, and not of journals, and the digital communication system of science begins to take a meaningful shape. Jean-Claude Guidon Le mardi 28 mars 2017 à 00:50 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit : From: Anali Perry <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:03:34 +0000 Hi Ann, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my earlier response. Unpaywall only searches institutional repositories and publisher sites, so it's about as legal as one can get - assuming all articles on publisher's sites are legal, as well as whatever posted on a repository being vetted by repository management. Regarding which version, if it is on a publisher's site, it will be the final published version. If it is on a repository, the default assumption is likely author's final manuscript, but most repositories have some indicator about which version was archived - there are some cases where final published version is allowed, for example, and the repository description would probably reflect that. Hope that helps, Anali Maughan Perry Associate Librarian - Collections & Scholarly Communication Arizona State University Libraries (480) 727-6301 [log in to unmask] http://libguides.asu.edu/profile/amperry http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7173-4827 My pronouns are she/her/hers. -----Original Message----- From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:16:48 -0400 Hi, Anali, that still doesn't answer my question of "how does one know which version?" "OA version" isn't exactly an answer, or at least not what I was wondering. Assuming that what is pointed to is definitely legal, what I meant is, how does one know if this is a final final published version, an e-print version, an author's manuscript version, etc. Cheers, Ann Okerson On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:52 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Anali Perry <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:41:08 +0000 Subject: RE: ImpactStory releases new Chrome Extension: Unpaywall Hi Brian, Google Scholar does not reliably index all institutional repositories (there have been a few studies documenting this - there are issues on both the repository & Google sides). Unpaywall specifically indexes known OA locations, so it would be more reliable for finding OA content. From the FAQ: “We rely on some fantastic open data services, especially PubMed Central, the DOAJ, Crossref (particularly their license info), DataCite, and BASE.” To answer Ann’s earlier question – Unpaywall searches both publishers’ sites as well as repositories. If an OA version of the article is available via the publisher, then it will point to that. If a postprint is available on a repository as the only OA option that should be what it pulls up. There’s an option in the settings to have Unpaywall signal whether the article is Gold or Green. Anali Maughan Perry Associate Librarian - Collections & Scholarly Communication ASU Library (480) 727-6301 [log in to unmask]