Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGoodman, David
dc.contributor.authorDowson, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorYarmanchuk, Jean
dc.date.accessioned2007-07-02T00:00:01Z
dc.date.available2010-06-18T23:44:25Z
dc.date.issued2007-07en_US
dc.date.submitted2007-07-02en_US
dc.identifier.citationOpen Access and Accuracy: a comparison of authorsâ self-archived manuscripts and published articles 2007-07, 20(3):203-215 Learned Publishingen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/106318
dc.description.abstractSome approaches to Open Access (OA) use authors' manuscript copies for the OA version, in the form accepted after peer review but prior to full editing. Advocates of such approaches are certain that these versions differ only trivially from the publishers' versions; many of those who oppose them are equally certain that there can be major discrepancies. In a pilot study, we have examined the actual differences in a small number of such article pairs in the social sciences and in biology. Using an operational classification of the extent of error, we have determined that neither pronouncement is likely to be correct. We found numerous small differences that affect readability between open access and publishers' versions. We also found a low frequency of potentially confusing errors, but sometimes it was the publisher's and sometimes the manuscript version that was more accurate. We found two cases where errors introduced by the publisher omit technical details that are necessary to evaluate the validity of the conclusions. However, we found no error that actually affected the validity of the data or results.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAssociation of Learned and Professional Society Publishersen_US
dc.subjectScholarly Communicationen_US
dc.subject.otherOpen Accessen_US
dc.subject.otherCopy-editingen_US
dc.titleOpen Access and Accuracy: a comparison of authorsâ self-archived manuscripts and published articlesen_US
dc.typeJournal Article (Paginated)en_US
dc.identifier.journalLearned Publishingen_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-21T17:27:07Z
html.description.abstractSome approaches to Open Access (OA) use authors' manuscript copies for the OA version, in the form accepted after peer review but prior to full editing. Advocates of such approaches are certain that these versions differ only trivially from the publishers' versions; many of those who oppose them are equally certain that there can be major discrepancies. In a pilot study, we have examined the actual differences in a small number of such article pairs in the social sciences and in biology. Using an operational classification of the extent of error, we have determined that neither pronouncement is likely to be correct. We found numerous small differences that affect readability between open access and publishers' versions. We also found a low frequency of potentially confusing errors, but sometimes it was the publisher's and sometimes the manuscript version that was more accurate. We found two cases where errors introduced by the publisher omit technical details that are necessary to evaluate the validity of the conclusions. However, we found no error that actually affected the validity of the data or results.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
OAandA_GDY.pdf
Size:
312.5Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record