Re: Errors in author's versions

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

As to how a reader would know which version they are looking at: 
our association is working with NISO on just this issue;  see 
http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email:  sally.morris@alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Errors in author's versions

> Two separate points under discussion here, no?  First is the 
> question of whether publishers add value through one aspect of 
> the editing process, sometimes and incorrectly called 
> copy-editing.  This is the editing that takes place AFTER a 
> manuscript is accepted for publication.  While this debate has 
> been raging, I wandered over to my wife's desk, where she, a 
> medical editor, spends the day reworking obscure language, 
> sometimes rewriting paragraphs and often entire articles, 
> checking and formatting citations, checking Web links, etc. 
> This material routinely goes back and forth between editor and 
> author until a final version is produced. When I told her that 
> many people question the editorial value that a publisher 
> brings to STM articles, she looked up at me as though to say, 
> "You must be kidding!"  This is Anthony's point, and it is 
> correct.
>
> Now there is the question of whether there are significant 
> errors in OA material that does not exist in the authorized 
> version of the same material as made available from the 
> publisher.  Trick question.  Which version of the editing 
> ultimately appears in an OA repository?  If the first, boy! I 
> hope my doctor isn't working from that.  The second?  Still 
> risky.  The third? Sorry, but I am cautious about this kind of 
> thing.  It's the final, except for being rendered as a PDF 
> (typically from a Microsoft Word file). Well, that's okay, 
> though how do I know that?
>
> I personally am not aware of any harm that has come to a 
> patient at the hands of a doctor who worked with an OA copy of 
> an article where there was a materially corrected version 
> available from a publisher.  This is David's point, and it is 
> correct.
>
> The difficult question is, What would happen if the OA article 
> were entirely unedited?  If the publisher doesn't continue to 
> carry the cost of this work, who will?  OA thus depends on a 
> vibrant *and profitable* publishing sector to secure the 
> quality of even OA repositories.  We can say that publications 
> cost too much, that some publishers are pigs, that not all 
> authors require the same amount of editorial attention, and so 
> on, but don't say that publishers do not add value.  It's 
> simply not so.
>
> Joe Esposito