Re: "Accepted Manuscript"

[Greg Tananbaum <gtananbaum@gmail.com>]

Sandy, I would file this objection under the "queasiness in the 
face of authority erosion"  category.  In your example it is not 
as if the citing author has referenced an entirely different 
source with different conclusions, methodology, and so forth. 
In most cases the repository version will be a reasonable proxy 
for the "version of record".  Reasonable people could conclude 
that some sloppiness is a price well worth paying in return for 
the increased accessibility.

Note that I am not making an Information Wants to be Free 
argument here. Rather, I think it is simply worth acknowledging 
that in many cases, information *is* free, or at least is certain 
versions of it are.  Scholarly communication is trending away 
from its tradition of order.  I am not sure that chaos looms, but 
certainly at least a little messiness does. Repositories sit 
alongside established journals.  Google is used as a proxy for 
catalogued databases.  Perhaps soon concepts that were once 
presented formally at annual conferences will be twittered out in 
140-character bursts.  Can we as scholarly communication 
professionals stop this trend? Should we even try?  To me, these 
are among the most fascinating questions our field faces.  In a 
world trending toward Oscar Madison, how does Felix Unger find 
his place?

Best, Greg

-- 
Greg Tananbaum
Consulting Services at the Intersection of Technology, Content, & Academia
(510) 295-7504
greg@scholarnext.com
http://www.scholarnext.com