RE: Errors in author's versions

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

I appreciate Peter's mentioning this, for I have only with 
considerable effort found enough to study.

Given our observations that such author-copy pre- or postprints 
rarely occur (at least in some subjects), perhaps all the 
controversy is obsolete about what version to deposit, and all 
the discussion about exactly what name to use for what version.

Peter, I gather then that you agree that such distinctions as in 
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/about/authorms.html

"The final manuscript supplied to PMC is the version that the 
journal accepted for publication, including any revisions that 
the author made during the peer review process. The published 
version of the article usually includes additional changes made 
by the journal's editorial staff after acceptance of the author's 
final manuscript. These edits may be limited to matters of style 
and format or they could include more substantive changes made 
with the concurrence of the author."

are no longer pertinent.

It would be very encouraging to see at least one of the OA 
controversial points finally resolved.

Dr. David Goodman
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University

dgoodman@liu.edu
dgoodman@princeton.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Peter Banks
Sent: Tue 7/11/2006 9:26 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Errors in author's versions

The problem with your hypotheses today is that they cannot be 
tested. In clinical medicine, it is rare to find post-prints or 
pre-preprints posted in repositories. That could change in the 
future, though I suspect not, because authors themselves probably 
won't want anything less than than their most proofed and 
polished work available.

Suppose, however, that clinical medical articles were widely 
available in pre- or post-print forms. It is likely that any 
dangerous mistake that found its way into usage and resulted in 
harm would be a rare event. The fact that there is a very small, 
though finite, potential for harm is not an argument for the 
failure to exercise due diligence by distributing only that 
information that is as carefully reviewed and refined as 
possible. In every field--whether engineering, aviation, or 
medicine--we check and cross check information to guard against 
the possibility of a highly improbable yet potentially 
catastrophic event.


Peter Banks
Banks Publishing Publications Consulting and Services 
Fairfax, VA 22030
pbanks@bankspub.com


On 7/10/06 4:21 PM, "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU> wrote:

> I propose 2 working hypothesis:
>
> I. There are no published medical articles having an author's OA
> version differing from the publisher's version, where the
> author's OA version has a error critically affecting patient
> care, and the publisher's version does not have the error.
>
> II. There are no published medical articles having an author's OA
> version differing from the publisher's versions, where the
> publisher's version has a error critically affecting patient
> care, and the author's OA version does not have the error.
>
> I also propose the stronger hypotheses:
>
> III. There are no published scholarly scientific articles having
> an author's OA version differing from the publisher's version,
> where the author's OA version has a error invalidating the
> article as a whole, and the publisher's version does not have the
> error.
>
> IV. There are no published scholarly scientific articles having
> an author's OA versions differing from the publisher's version,
> where the publisher's version has a error invalidating the
> article as a whole, and the author's OA version does not have the
> error.
>
> I propose these as hypotheses; I know of no examples
> contradicting any of the four, and several knowledgable people
> have also no examples to offer.
>
> (There will presumably be some less drastic differences, whose
> frequency and importance is a matter for further investigation.)
>
> Examples will be of interest, online or off.
>
> I mention that I expected to easily identify a significant number
> of such examples, and have failed to find any; I have not the
> least idea or prejudice whether such articles do exist.
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Associate Professor
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
> and formerly
> Princeton University Library
> dgoodman@princeton.edu