Stevan
Â
There is no need to exaggerate.
Â
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 th
In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote:
> When we turn to the researcher, the situation changes significantly,
> if slightly. Researchers regard the VoR as the canonic version of
> their article, almost exclusively (I exempt you and me and a small set
> of similar-minded people). As far a
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Arthur Sale wrote:
Stevan
Â
There is no need to exaggerate.
Â
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 o
(Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs.
publisher's version-of-record
In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote:
> When we turn to the researcher, the situation changes significantly,
> if slightly. Researchers regard the V
un...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 12:16 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs.
publisher's version-of-record
> Anthony
A
> Andrew
>
> Sorry for the mistake about your name and thank you for the tolerance.
No problem. I've been called worse, and not in deliberate insult, either. I
think the worst was being introduced to someone as Adam Adamson. The perils
of a surname that is almost a first name. I'm not immune to
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,
In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote:
> When we turn to the researcher, the situation changes significantly,
> if slightly. Researchers regard the VoR as the canonic version of
> their article, almost exclusively (I exempt you and me and a small set
> of similar-minded people). As far a
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Arthur Sale 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
(Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs.
publisher's version-of-record
In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote:
> When we turn to the researcher, the situation changes significantly,
> if slightly. Researchers regard the V
> Anthony
Andrew, actually. But, absolutely no offense taken :-).
> Point 1 - absolutely true. Only a small minority of downloads lead to
> citations. Have a look at the download data of eprints.utas.edu.au. However
> I cannot resist writing that citations are not the same as impact. Only in
> ac
es at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 12:16 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs.
publisher's version-of-record
> Anthony
A
> Andrew
>
> Sorry for the mistake about your name and thank you for the tolerance.
No problem. I've been called worse, and not in deliberate insult, either. I
think the worst was being introduced to someone as Adam Adamson. The perils
of a surname that is almost a first name. I'm not immune to
13 matches
Mail list logo
