Re: "Accepted Manuscript"

[Peter Hirtle <pbh6@cornell.edu>]

Sandy Thatcher asks if he is the only one who worries about 
confusion over the terminology used for article versions.  He is 
not.

The use of "preprint" and "postprint" as shorthand makes no sense 
historically, logically, or functionally.  Historically, it 
ignores the scholarly conventions that have been in place at 
least since the start of the 20th century and which distinguished 
between manuscripts, preprints, offprints, and reprints (based 
upon the peculiarities of printing processes).

Logically, it makes no sense to talk about a manuscript that has 
not been typeset or printed as a "postprint."  Functionally, it 
obscures the value that is added at each step of the publication 
process.  It implies that the author's peer-reviewed manuscript 
is the equivalent of the version as published, whereas most of 
the faculty with whom I work consider a manuscript version to be 
a poor substitute for the final version of their articles as 
issued by the publisher.

Let's hope that OA advocates such as Sherpa/RoMEO and Peter Suber 
soon adopt a more nuanced approach.  I would think either the 5 
versions of an article identified in the VERSIONS project or the 
7 versions in the NISO/ALPSP standard would be preferable - at 
least until we have evidence that the differences between these 
versions are trivial.

Peter B. Hirtle
Senior Policy Advisor
Scholarly Resources and Special Collections
Cornell University Library
221 Olin Library
Ithaca, NY  14853
peter.hirtle@cornell.edu
t.  607.255-4033
f.  607.255-2493