[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Arthur Sale <ahjs at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Stevan****
>
> ** **
>
> There is no need to exaggerate. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Clearly from the point of view of a reader, the *Accepted Manuscript*(NISO terminology) is better than no article at all. Equally clearly, the
> *Version of Record* (again NISO terminology) is better still.  From the
> point of view of providing access then, then the preferences for mandatory
> deposits are (1) the AM as soon as sent off to publisher, (2) followed by
> the VoR at publication time if the author did not an agreement giving up
> rights in it. It is worth noting that in most jurisdictions, publishers
> have no automatic rights in a VoR any different from the AM. They depend on
> the copyright transfer agreement to control the VoR.****
>
> This is very useful to know the precise terminology.

I recently discovered some examples, such as
http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~sxs98ltb/chambersLobbButlerHarveyTraill.pdf
This manuscript contains the phase "Author’s Accepted Manuscript". Does
GOAL know or can it speculate usefully who added this phrase. Is it done by
the author (seems unlikely), the publisher, or an institutional repository?

Similarly in my previous mail to GOAL  I gave the example of a manuscript
in Pubmed which appeared to be a AM but contained phraseology which
appeared to have sections added by or at the request of the publisher.

I am simply asking for factual information.

P.




>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120215/5fc6c6cd/attachment.html