Totally agree Sally, it is worth pointing out. Actually the primary
Version of Record for a print journal is normally the paper article
(not electronic at all and on varying paper sizes dependent on
country and publisher), and an electronic VoR file is a derived
Version of Record usually
Forwarding some more wise words from the Antipodean Archivangelist,
Arthur Sale, about the Brisbane Declaration and why the OA IR deposit
draft should be the author's final refereed preprint rather than the
publisher's version of record:
-- Forwarded message --
List-Post:
Open Access and the Skewness of Science: It Can't Be Cream All the Way Down
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/474-guid.html
Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why Current
Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Medicine Vol. 5, No.
10, e201
National Cancer Institute of Canada (CANADA*
funder-mandate)
Institution's/Department's OA Eprint Archives
Institution's/Department's OA Self-Archiving Policy
Effective July 2009, all researchers supported in whole or in part
through the NCIC are required to make their published results of NCIC
University of Glasgow (UK* funder-mandate)
Institution's/Department's OA Eprint Archives
Institution's/Department's OA Self-Archiving Policy
The policy policy requires staff to deposit:
-- electronic copies of peer-reviewed journal articles
and conference proceedings
--
For full text click here
SUMMARY: Unlike with OA's primary target, journal articles, the
deposit of the full-texts of books in Open Access Repositories cannot
be mandated, only encouraged. However, the deposit of book metadata +
plus + reference-lists can and should be mandated. That will create
