Toolkit
TOOLKIT
for authors, researchers
and repository staff
February 2008
Top 5 hints
1 Consider and plan how you will store and name your personal
versions of files from now on
2 Keep permanently your own author-created Submitted
Versions and final author-created Accepted Versions of
research publications
3 Add the date of completion of manuscript to the first page of any
versions you create, especially your milestone versions
4 Consider carefully how you will disseminate your work before
signing any agreements with publishers and keep a copy of your
signed agreements
5 Deposit your work in an open access repository and think of your
readers by guiding them to your latest and published versions
Suggested version names for journal articles
Draft
Early version circulated as work in progress
Submitted
The version that has been submitted to a journal for
Version
peer review
Accepted Version
The author-created version that incorporates referee
comments and is the accepted for publication version
Published
The publisher-created published version
Version
Updated Version
A version updated since publication
Versions Toolkit
Contents –
Contents
PAGE
Introduction
2
For authors
3
The versions issue and its importance
3
Creating, storing and organising your research outputs
4
Dissemination
8
Author agreements with publishers and other parties
Version identification – helping your readers
4
For readers
7
For repository staff
8
Resources
9
2 – Introduction
Versions Toolkit
Introduction
Thank you for your interest in this Versions
Toolkit. It is a practical guide to help you
VERSIONS survey of researchers
when taking decisions about disseminating
Quotations and survey results in this toolkit are
your research on the web. The toolkit is
based on a survey of researchers conducted
written in the context of open access (OA)
by the VERSIONS Project in May-July 2006
self-archiving of research outputs by authors,
alongside traditional publication in refereed
• 464 respondents from 42 countries
journals and other academic publications.
• 75 per cent economics researchers
The focus is on open access institutional
• Research active – 50 per cent produce
repositories established by universities
two or more papers per year
worldwide. There is also relevance in
Roles of survey respondents:
the context of subject repositories.
Not an active resear
Not an active r
cher
esear
The toolkit is addressed to academic
Contract/freelance r
Contract/fr
esear
eelance r
cher
esear
researchers as authors and as readers.
Student (PhD or other resear
Student (PhD or other r
ch degr
esear
ee)
ch degr
It is also relevant for repository staff.
Post doctoral resear
Post doctoral r
ch staf
esear
f
ch staf
If you are an experienced researcher you are likely
Lecturer/Associate Pr
Lectur
ofessor
er/Associate Pr
to be disseminating your work on a personal
website, in a subject archive, or in an institutional
Professor
Pr
repository already. This toolkit aims to:
The full results of the VERSIONS Project
• provide peer-to-peer advice about managing
survey are available on the project website.
personal versions and revisions in order to keep
your options open for future use of your work
We hope that you enjoy reading the toolkit and that
you will get some value from it. If you find it useful
• clarify areas of uncertainty among researchers
please let your col eagues know about it. You can
about agreements with publishers and how these find the toolkit on the VERSIONS Project website.
relate to different versions of research outputs
• suggest ways to identify your work
www.lse.ac.uk/versions
clearly when placing it on the web in
order to guide your readers to the latest
and best versions of your work
• direct you to further resources about making
versions of your work openly accessible
The toolkit draws on the results of a survey of
researchers’ attitudes and current practice when
JISC briefing paper on Open Access
creating, storing and disseminating different versions
www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/
of their research. As such the guidance in the
pub_openaccess_v2.aspx
toolkit represents the views of active researchers.
Survey respondents were predominantly
from economics and related disciplines.
Versions Toolkit
For authors – 3
For authors
• a series of draft versions produced as part of the
revision process between co-authors of a paper
to be submitted to a journal for publication
The versions issue and its importance
• a working paper version of a paper that later
The issue of versions and version identification
develops into a shorter journal article
has become more important to authors with the
development of the web and digital technologies.
• a translation of a paper
This changing environment makes it easier to
Some commentators make a distinction between
store and disseminate earlier versions of research
versions and revisions, using the term revision
outputs. The development is a positive one in
to denote a minor stage along the process.
terms of improving scholarly communication and
timely exchange of ideas. However ease of storage
Many types of output and many revisions
and dissemination sometimes leads to a lack of
organisation and clear identification. One negative
As an active researcher you are likely to create
result can be a difficulty in locating specific versions different types of output for a typical project
among personal col ections of files, thus limiting
or research topic. For example you may make a
options for dissemination. Another is the time
conference paper and presentation, a workshop
consuming process on the part of the reader to find presentation, a working paper or discussion
the latest and any other important versions of an
paper, journal article, book chapter, or report to
author’s work when these are not clearly identified.
your project funder.In addition to this range of
different versions of your work, the process of
What is meant by versions?
creating the outputs also typical y includes the
process of revision. This will result in many, many
In this toolkit, the word version is used to describe
versions and revisions of your work, sometimes
one or more instances of a research output that is
with co-authors. With so many different types of
closely related to another in terms of its intel ectual output and so many revisions you may well quickly
content. Some examples of this could be:
col ect a large number of versions of one particular
• a conference paper version of a paper you later
paper in all its expressions and manifestations.
submit for publication in a refereed journal
59 per cent
of researchers produce
Conference/
Conference Paper
Workshop
four or more different types
Presentation
Working Paper
Conf
C
e
o
re
n
n
f
c
of research output from a
e
e
re
/
nce Pape
W
r
orkshop
Pr
W
es
o
e
r
n
k
t
i
a
n
t
g P
ion
aper
typical research project
C
C
o
o
n
n
f
f
e
e
re
W
re
nc
o
n
e P
P
r
c
k
e
a
r
p
e
s
/
W
h
e
s
r
e
o
o
n
p
rkin
ta
g P
tio
a
n
per
Journal Article
Report
Book Chapter
Journal Article
Report
Book Chapter
Journal Ar
R
ti
e
c
p
le
ort
Book Chapter
59%
4 – For authors
Versions Toolkit
Authors produce and store many versions of their research outputs
For each type of research output
produced, authors go through many
UNIVERSITY
iterations. The number of revisions
DRAFT.DOC
is increased when working with
DRAFT2.DOC
co-authors. In the production of a
@
@
journal article, versions can run to
as many as 60. Of these multiple
DRAFT3.DOC
versions authors consider a handful
lead
co-author
to be milestone versions.
author
FAX & E
UNIVERSITY 2
MA
DRAFT2a.DOC
IL
PUBLISHER
Creating, storing and
Report
@
Report
R
organising your
eport
www
research outputs
A key question for you
co-author
to consider is how many
versions you wish to keep
and for how long? In our survey of researchers
Keeping milestone versions
we found three main approaches:
A majority of researchers are happy with a middle
way: identifying and careful y storing ‘milestone
Keeping everything and keeping
versions’. They regularly discard minor revisions
it permanently
once the next stage is reached but they ensure
This approach is feasible given the availability of
that they keep the major versions. The versions can
cheap digital storage space. It has the seeming
represent a step along the road to publication or
advantage that you will never inadvertently discard they can represent natural development phases in
a version of your work that you may one day want
the intel ectual content of the work. Authors who
to return to. In practice though, many authors
keep milestone versions keep their own author-
who do this have told us that it is difficult (after
produced versions as well as publisher versions
an interval of time) to be able to locate easily the
provided to them, such as publisher proofs and
precise version you need. However, this approach
‘reprints’. See table on page 5 for guidance on
can be a good strategy provided that you give
milestone versions.
careful consideration to how you will organise
Tip: Keep all your milestone versions and
your files.
aim to keep them permanently.
Tip: If you decide on keeping everything
permanently, spend some time considering
how best to organise your files. Pick a
system that makes sense to you and use
it consistently.
Versions Toolkit
For authors – 5
Type of research output
Suggested milestone versions
Other personal
milestones
Book chapter
Submitted version, Accepted Version,
… and any other
Publisher’s proof, Published version
versions marking a
major shift,
Conference and workshop
Final versions of the slides
eg a point at which
presentations
the paper was split
Conference paper
Submitted version, Revised version for
or merged or at
inclusion in published proceedings
which the ideas or
Journal article
Draft for comment, Submitted version(s), Accepted
content developed
Version (fol owing referee comments), Publisher’s
proof, Published version (eg, publisher-provided PDF)
Working paper
Submitted version, Published version
Keeping only the latest version
and keep this alongside the publisher-provided
A minority of economics researchers tell us they
PDF file. It is a good idea to keep the Accepted
discard all earlier versions of their work as they
Version of the paper in an editable format too,
revise. This can be a very good information
such as a word processing format. In this way
management strategy which will help to reduce
the abstract, keywords and other information
confusion about multiple versions and revisions as
can be used by your institutional repository
you go along. Before deciding on this course it is
staff to index your work. This will greatly add
worth considering whether you risk limiting how
to the visibility of your research on the web.
you can exploit and re-use your own work in the
Having an editable format will also help your
future by discarding too much.
repository managers to preserve the digital
content well into the future by migrating
Tip: If you prefer to discard all draft
the file to newer formats as these arise.
versions as you revise, consider at least
keeping the following versions of your
Your repository managers will probably create
published work to keep your options open:
a PDF of your work for dissemination in the
• Submitted version (the version you
repository to protect against misuse or plagiarism,
submit to a journal for peer review or to
or you can supply this yourself if you prefer.
a book publisher)
• Accepted Version (the version you
Tip: Keep the final author-created Accepted
create following peer review or
Version in an editable format such as a
editorial comment).
word processing format and deposit this
with your repository staff.
Recommendation: Keep your final author-
created Accepted Version following peer
It may be that you have a personal col ection of
review. This is a single very important
typed manuscripts of your older papers. Be sure
step you can take as an individual to
to keep these in addition to any reprint copies
open up access to your refereed research
supplied to you at the time by publishers.
publications to a wider readership
Tip: Keep old typed author manuscript
Formats of author versions to keep
versions too. It may be possible for your
institution to digitise these in future and
Many researchers create a non-editable PDF file
to make them available on the web.
of their final Accepted Versions of journal papers
– For authors
Versions Toolkit
Organising versions of your
told us they have access to a version control
research outputs
system or to groupware and that these software
As a researcher you are on the move, working
tools help them to control the process of
from home, office, conference or field work
revising their work. Other col aborative spaces
location. You may be using mobile and wireless
for sharing documents and managing versions
technologies and have a range of storage
include wikis and project management tools.
devices: work network drive, home and office
PCs, laptop, mobile phone or PDA, external
Tip: When working with co-authors, agree
storage media such as USB stick, CD/DVD.
in advance how you will ensure the orderly
revision of the paper and where the main
Your office network storage space is likely to
versions will be stored.
be secure and backed up at frequent intervals,
while other personal storage devices are more
susceptible to loss or damage. You may want to
Research on personal information management
make offline backups yourself at regular intervals
suggests that it is harder to locate our own digital
both for convenience and for peace of mind.
assets after the passage of time than it is to
find paper-based documents. For paper-based
Tip: Choose one location as your primary
documents we may keep a special box or folder
storage space and copy any versions from
of important things and remember where it is
other locations to this frequently to bring it
kept in our office or home. We are less likely to
up to date.
prioritise our important digital files in such a way.
A regular inspection of your files can help you
Take some time to decide how you are going to
to identify the important versions and store
use your computer file system to arrange your
these safely.
files in a way that makes sense for your own work.
Without this planning, researchers tell us they keep
Tip: Consider creating a special folder in
everything ‘just in case’ but cannot in practice
your computer file system for your ‘must-
locate specific versions easily when they need to.
keep’ versions. Give these priority over
superseded or less important versions.
Authors tell us they keep their multiple versions
and revisions in folders and subfolders such as:
• Research project or topic
Version identification of your own files
• Paper
In this section of the toolkit we offer you
• Calendar year
some tips that have come from researchers
• Journal(s) in which intending to publish
themselves about how they identify their own
• Conferences
files. You may find some of these useful.
• Older versions
• Accepted Versions of articles
Dates – computer file system date
• Publisher PDF versions
and time
Your own computer’s file system, will provide
Tip: Decide on a folder structure that makes you with access to information about the date
sense to you and be consistent.
and time created and date and time modified,
which can help you to sort and find the latest
When working with co-authors it is worth
versions of your work. However, take care to
agreeing in advance how you will handle versions
note what happens with these dates when
and how to ensure that revisions are always
files have been copied from older versions.
made to the latest version. Some researchers
Versions Toolkit
For authors – 7
Date of completion of manuscript
Notes
It is a good idea to type the date yourself on the
Adding a note to the front page of versions of
front page of any draft or version you are working
your paper is a way to convey useful information
on and to be consistent about updating this date
about the version in a concise form that can be
when you save a new version. The date(s) you
easily understood by human readers. If you do this
add should include the date you last worked on
while revising your paper, you may find it easier
the manuscript. Readers told us this is one of
to differentiate between versions after an interval
the most important elements in helping them to
of time. It is a good idea at least to add such
check they have the version they wish to read.
notes to any version you intend to disseminate.
Version numbering
Notes could explain:
This can be a useful convention for your own
• Where this version is on the path
purposes while revising a paper, particularly
towards publication
when working with co-authors. Whether or
• How it relates to other work. It could be
not you include version numbers on papers you
particularly important to highlight the link to any
disseminate to an external readership is a matter of related work that bears a different title
choice for you. Some researchers have told us they • How it differs from any published version
use version numbering to differentiate between
(if applicable)
major and minor changes to a paper. For example, • If the work is an update of a published
v1.1, v1.2, v1.3 represent minor revisions, while
work (eg a conference paper updating work
v2.0 represents a major development in the paper.
presented in an earlier journal paper)
Filenaming conventions
For example:
When identifying your own versions and
‘This paper is the submitted version for Journal X.
revisions, the use of dates or version numbers
It is based on earlier personal drafts with input
(or both) in a file name can be a very
from conference presentation Y at conference Z’
useful technique for identifying earlier and
You may find the checklist on page 15 helpful in
later versions in your own file system.
deciding which information to include on the first
For example a filename progression
page of your paper.
could be something like:
nameofpaper v0a 22sep07.doc
nameofpaper v0b 25sep07.doc
nameofpaper v1a 7oct07.doc
Authors tell us that they add other clues about the
version to the filenames for their own convenience,
such as:
• Journal abbreviation to denote a submitted version
• ‘Final’ perhaps also with journal abbreviation
to denote an Accepted Version
8 – For authors
Versions Toolkit
Dissemination
Dissemination of early versions and work
in progress
Which versions to disseminate
Early dissemination of work in progress is much
The decision about when to disseminate your
more common in some disciplines such as physics,
work and whether to make early versions of work
computer science, and economics than in others.
in progress openly accessible to the public is a
Economists have told us that it can take up to three
personal one for you as an author. If you have
years to publish in a refereed journal and therefore
signed an agreement with a publisher, then it
dissemination takes place early through pre-prints,
becomes a matter partly governed by the contract
working papers and conference/workshop material.
you have signed and also by copyright law.
The benefits of doing this are in speeding up
Authors often say that they are unsure which
scholarly communication and exchange of ideas.
versions of their research outputs they are
Some authors are concerned that placing
permitted to post on the web or in an open
an early version of their work in an open
access repository. However 81 per cent of
access repository or elsewhere on the web
our survey respondents told us that if their
may count as prior publication in the eyes of
200university invites them to place a copy of
publishers and thus render the work ineligible
their final author version in the institutional
for publication at a future date. In fact you
repository they would be wil ing to do this.
may find that publisher policies are more liberal
150
It is not the purpose of this toolkit to make
on this issue than you think. It is a good idea
recommendations to you about how and
to check the policy of publishers and journals
100when to disseminate your work. Rather we
in which you hope to publish in future.
offer practical advice about what to consider
if you do wish to make early versions of your
Tip: The SHERPA/RoMEO website www.
50 work and final Accepted Versions of your work
sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php provides links to
publisher policies and can be a good place
avail1
able on o 2
pen acce 3
ss. We als 4
o hope t 5
o direct 6
7
to start.
you to further information about publisher
0
1
c Knowing whether ther
opyright an e is a published version
d your rights as an au5t Knowing whether I have found all of the versions/copies that could
hor.
be available to me
2 Knowing if I have found the latest (most recently issued)
version
6 Time taken to look at different versions
3 Knowing which version is most authoritative
7 Other
4 Knowing the difference between the content of one version
and another
If your university invites you to
‘Far too often online references
place a copy of your paper in the
disappear or move to other
institutional repository and requests
from you the ‘final author version’,
locations, usual y within two
would you provide this version?
years of referencing them.
4
This is a very serious issue
Yes
which needs sorting out.’
3
2 No
2
3 Don’t know
‘With all online resources,
4 Don’t
it is important that the
produce papers
URL be highly durable, so
that future readers can
consult one’s sources.
Versions Toolkit
For authors – 9
Another concern sometimes expressed by authors
said it is essential or important to them that a work
is that while they are happy to disseminate early
that has been available online stays available at
versions of their work, once the work is revised,
the same location. Readers have told us that they
refereed and published they would prefer to
general y download and/or print out a copy of
remove earlier versions in order to exercise some
anything they read online because of the fear that
quality control. They are concerned that readers
it may disappear or have a broken link in future.
may find an early unrevised version of their work
and miss a higher quality refereed version (which
Tip: If you disseminate early versions, do
could also be several years more up to date).
this through deposit in a well-managed
repository to enable future linking with
There are a couple of things you can do as an
later versions and/or compliance with
author to address this concern:
publisher requirements in due course.
• Deposit your early work in an institutional
repository (or subject repository) if you disseminate Authors have concerns about loss of or dilution
it. In that way when a later version is added, a link
of citations to their published work if they
will be made between the two and the reader will
disseminate early versions online. To some
be guided to the most recent version as well as to
extent this is a function of the delays in the
any published versions
publishing process. The early work is read while
• Clearly identify your early work to show what
peer review is taking place. By the time the
status the version has, eg draft for comment,
paper is published, so the argument goes, the
submitted version
research community has moved on. To mitigate
• Add the date of completion of the manuscript
against this, you have the option to mark your
Your readers also have an interest in finding
early version with a request not to cite.
your latest work and with these clues they
will know they should look further.
Tip: If you disseminate an early version for
It is difficult successful y to withdraw earlier copies
comment or discussion but hope to publish
of your work once they have been disseminated
and receive citations for the publication,
on the web and it is likely to be unfair to your
mark your early versions with a request
readership. 81 per cent of researchers we surveyed
‘Please do not cite’.
200
If you read an earlier version of a paper
that has been published in a journal,
how would you prefer to cite it?
4 5
150
Cite the published version only, even
3
though I have read the earlier version 339
2 Cite both the published version and the
earlier author version that I have read 33
2
100
3 Cite the earlier author version
that I have read 58
4 Do not cite any version of the paper if I
have not read the published version 22
50
5 Don’t know 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1 Knowing whether there is a published version
5 Knowing whether I have found all of the versions/copies that could
be available to me
2 Knowing if I have found the latest (most recently issued)
version
6 Time taken to look at different versions
3 Knowing which version is most authoritative
7 Other
4 Knowing the difference between the content of one version
and another
0 – For authors
Versions Toolkit
Open access dissemination of later
When considering this issue, it may be worth
versions of published work
bearing in mind the potential readership
Once your work has been refereed and published
among those who do not have access to the
you have a community of readers made up of
published version. For such readers it will be a
those researchers in your field who happen to
huge benefit to be able to have access to the
have access to your book or a subscription to
content of the paper at al , even if it is not the
the journal. The decision for you at this stage is
ful y polished published version. By depositing
whether to make your work available to a wider
your Accepted Version in a wel -managed open
readership by placing a copy of your refereed work access repository, you will find that your open
in an open access repository or on the web. The
access Accepted Version will be linked to the
question of whether your agreement with your
published version. In this way any reader with
publisher permits this is discussed on page 11.
access to the published version can go there.
Authors sometimes express concern about the
If there are late corrections or amendments that
time taken to find and prepare a copy of the
concern you as an author, there are a couple of
Accepted Version of articles. Issues may include:
options available to you:
• When co-authoring, only the corresponding or
• Indicate on the front page of your Accepted
lead author has the final Accepted Version
Version the extent to which the published
• After an interval of time, it is too
version differs from the Accepted Version text
costly to go through computer drives
and alert your institutional repository administrator
to look for the Accepted Version.
to this also
• Provide on the front page of your Accepted
The advice elsewhere in this toolkit about
Version the correct citation for the published
managing personal files of versions and ensuring
version, including the DOI (Digital Object Identifier)
that final Accepted Versions are retained, perhaps
if known
in a special folder, should help to minimise
• If you wish to make the additional effort, you
the effort needed. The benefits in terms of
could edit your version to incorporate all the
increased readership and visibility of research
corrections made at copy-editing and proof-
may be weighed against the time required to
reading stages if your publisher agreement
locate and make available these versions.
permits this, or append a note of such changes.
Tip: When working with co-authors, protect
Tip: If you wish to disseminate your final
your rights by requesting a copy of the
Accepted Version but are concerned about
final Accepted Version from the lead or
variation from the published version,
corresponding author, so that you have
provide the details of these variations to
access to your own work.
your repository staff.
Another concern mentioned by some authors
Concern about loss of citations is also mentioned
is that the final author-created Accepted
(by 42 per cent of researchers in our survey) in
Version of a paper is of poorer quality than
connection with providing final author-created
the published version. For example, the final
Accepted Versions to institutional repositories.
stages of revising an article may be carried out
However we also found that an overwhelming
by making hand-written amendments to a
majority of readers prefer to cite the published
publisher proof and so the published version
version, even when reading open access versions
may not be a 100 per cent verbatim copy of the
online. If you are concerned about loss of citations
final Accepted Version created by the author.
as an author, you could take a couple of actions
to help with this:
200
Versions Toolkit
For authors –
150
• Place your open access version in an
The first thing you can do to avoid limiting
institutional repository where it will be linked
your rights in your own work is to read this
to the published version
agreement very careful y and to consider
• Add your preferred citation to the front page
whether it al ows you to use your work in
of your Accepted Version
the way you want. You can negotiate with
100
• Indicate to your readers the variations, if any,
your publisher about the kinds of use you will
between Accepted Version and Published Version.
want to make. There are alternatives to the
standard copyright transfer agreement and
Author agreements with publishers
your publisher may be wil ing to agree.
50
and other parties
1
2
3
4
5
6Authors are ve7
ry uncertain about this
issue and how it relates to their ability
to make their work open access.
0
1 Knowing whether there is a published version
5 Knowing whether I have found all of the versions/copies that could
Publishers
be available to me
2 Knowing if I have found the latest (most recently issued)
version
6 Time taken to look at different versions
In the case of articles for publication in refereed
3 Knowing which version is most authoritative
7 Other
journals, as the author you are likely to be the
4 Knowing the difference between the content of one version
copyright holder, while drafting the paper.
and another
At some point in the process, usual y at acceptance
of manuscript or preparation of proofs, you will be
asked to sign a document known as a Copyright
Transfer Agreement. This document is a legal
contract. When you sign it, you typical y agree to
give away your copyright in your work in exchange
for publication of the work by the publisher.
Understanding of which version(s) of your
academic papers (intended for publication
in refereed academic journals) you are
allowed to disseminate in full text, in
5
which locations and at which times?
4
Level of understanding
Ful understanding
2 Some understanding
2
3 Limited understanding
3
4 No understanding
5 Don’t know
Don’t produce research outputs
2 – For authors
Versions Toolkit
Summary of the kinds of options that may be available to you to negotiate with your publisher
Who will hold
Author’s rights following
Types of agreement
the copyright
the agreement
Standard copyright
As determined by publisher
Publisher
transfer agreement
in their usual agreement
Copyright transfer agreement
Standard plus any
with author addendum
Publisher
additional agreed by
reserving certain rights
author with publisher
Retains copyright and grants
Licence to publish
Author
publisher a licence to publish
The excel ent SHERPA/RoMEO listing at www.
Funders
sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php provides very clear
Public research funders increasingly require
summaries of publishers’ standard agreement
grant holders to deposit research outputs arising
terms and links to the detailed policies on
from their grants into an open access repository.
publisher websites. The RoMEO site is searchable
In some cases this could lead to a conflict of
by journal title and by publisher name.
obligations on the part of authors, when a funder
SPARC has produced very clear guidance on how
requires deposit of an open access copy of their
to draft an addendum to standard agreements
work, while the publisher agreement prohibits this.
www.arl.org/sparc/author/index.html
It is essential to be aware of funder policies and to
keep the Accepted Version in order to be ready to
The SURF and JISC Copyright Toolbox provides a
comply with funder mandates. The JULIET website
sample licence to publish which you can propose
at www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php tracks
as an alternative to copyright transfer. http://
and summarises these policies and cross-refers
copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/
them with publisher policies in the RoMEO website.
In the table above is a summary of the kinds
of options that may be available to you
Employers
when negotiating with your publisher.
Some universities have agreed an intel ectual
property rights policy with their authors. As an
Recommendation: Consider the rights you
example, such a policy might leave academic staff
wish to retain and be ready to negotiate with as copyright holder of their research publications,
your publisher before signing an agreement.
but may seek a non-exclusive licence to make such
Recommendation: Keep a signed copy of the
research publications available on the university
agreement or licence you sign with
website and/or in an institutional repository.
your publisher and let your institutional
repository staff know of any special
terms you have secured.
Versions Toolkit
For authors – 3
Which versions when and where
• Publisher policies on permitted versions to make
The detail about which versions of your work
open access; for example some publishers insist
you can make openly accessible is set out in
on use of publisher-created published versions;
the standard copyright transfer agreements
others prohibit this but al ow use of author-created
and in any additional or different terms you
Accepted Versions
negotiate. There is variation among publishers
• Other publisher terms, such as set wording to
about which versions can be made accessible,
describe the version used or requirements to link
in which locations and at which times. This
to official publisher website
does lead to uncertainty among authors.
• Full details of publisher terms are available
through links to the publisher website
The RoMEO listing clarifies the terms offered by
publishers in their standard agreements with
Tip: Use the RoMEO website to check which
authors through a system of colour coding and
versions you may make open access and to
easy-to-read summaries. Typical queries that can
check the standard policies of journals in
be quickly answered by the RoMEO site include:
which you hope to publish in future
• Publisher policies on making pre-refereed papers
open access and any requirements to remove early
Tip: When negotiating with your publisher,
versions on publication
if they do not have a policy on open access,
• Publisher policies on making refereed Accepted
point them to the RoMEO website. It will
Versions open access
help you to explain what you are asking for
• Embargo periods fol owing publication before
and should encourage smaller publishers to
open access versions can be made available
develop a policy.
• Publisher policies on permitted locations of open
access versions – eg on author’s website or in
institutional repositories
8 per cent
9 per cent
of researchers told us that they
of the journals tracked by the RoMEO
were unsure whether their publisher
listing (from over 300 publishers),
copyright agreements permit
have standard policies which al ow
them to place final author versions
authors to make either the final
into institutional repositories.
Accepted Version open access or the
earlier draft or submitted versions1.
Some smal er publishers have yet to
formulate a policy on this issue.
?
Journal Policies – summary statistics so far
http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
FINAL.DOC
©68% 91%
4 – For authors
Versions Toolkit
In some cases your publisher will al ow you as an
Draft
Early version circulated
author to place a publisher-created PDF on your
as work in progress
own website but will only al ow you to make an
author-created Accepted Version available in an
institutional repository. Here are a few reasons
why it is worth you taking that extra step to
Submitted
The version that has been
archive your work in the repository:
Version
submitted to a journal for
peer review
• Increased visibility and discoverability of your
work through web search engines
• Indexing and professional description of your work
Accepted
The final author-created
• Long-term care and preservation of your
Version
version that incorporates
digital assets
referee comments and
• Careful linking to and from preceding,
is the accepted for
successive and related versions of your work
publication version
Published
The publisher-created
Version identification – helping
Version
published version
your readers
Researchers told us that they commonly find
multiple versions or copies of research outputs on
Updated Version A version updated
the web and have to spend time inspecting the
since publication
different versions to find the one they need (often
the latest version). If you provide an open access
version of your work to a subject repository or
Researchers tell us that being able to discover
institutional repository please let the administrator
the date of completion of a manuscript is one
know whatever you can about the version, for
of the top three solutions to the problem of
example:
multiple versions found online. Add dates to
• which version it is
the front page of all files that you are posting
• which journal or book it is (to be) published in
on open access sites because some search
• any variance from the published version
engines take readers straight to the PDF file
• date of completion of the manuscript
of your work and readers will need to identify
• existence of any other related versions on the
the version from information given on the first
web and/or in the institutional repository
page. Dates in the filename can also be helpful
• relationship of this version to other versions
to readers, though filenames can be subject to
• your preferred citation
change, for example on deposit to a repository.
We suggest that you try to identify your versions
of journal articles as one of the fol owing:
Tip: Make sure that you include important
information on the front page of your work
such as date of completion of manuscript
and suggested citation, if published.
Versions Toolkit
For authors – 5
If you are concerned about variation between
It can be helpful to your readers if you
your Accepted Version and the published version,
provide notes on the front page of your open
you could consider adding a brief note about the
access versions about how the paper fits
nature and extent of such variations, eg ‘verbatim
with other related works such as working
as published’, ‘minor punctuation changes’, ‘minor
paper versions. Repository staff will be able
but substantive change to formula on p.XX’.
to link your paper to related works.
Author checklist for identifying versions of research outputs
This checklist suggests a number of ways to identify versions of your work when placing open access
versions online. By adding some of these details to your research outputs you will help to guide your
readers to published, later, earlier or related versions.
The most useful elements for identifying versions are highlighted in bold text. Although this is a long
checklist, not all the elements will be important in every case. Any detail you can provide is likely to
be helpful.
Some elements are suggested for inclusion by you on the front page of your research output.
Others may simply be communicated to your repository staff when you deposit the work in an open
access repository.
If you deposit your work in a repository already, you may be asked to provide other elements of
information about your work. In this checklist we focus mainly on those elements which help to
identify different versions of a work.
Element
Example
Author(s) names
Title of work
Institution name(s)
Institution address(es)
Email address(es)
Date of completion
[Eg, Manuscript completed: 9 April 2008]
of manuscript
Version number
[Eg, V1.0 or v2c]
table continues…
– For authors
Versions Toolkit
Author checklist continued…
Filename
[Eg, nameofpaper_v1.5_19april08.pdf]
Status of version (select one)
[Draft | Submitted Version | Accepted Version |
Published Version | Updated Version]
Source of version (select one) [Author | Publisher]
Type of research output
[Pre-print or other work in progress | Conference paper
(select one)
| Conference presentation | Working paper | Discussion
paper | Book chapter | Journal article | etc]
Earlier version(s)
[Provide details of earlier versions from which this version is directly
derived. For example, the submitted version is an earlier version of
an Accepted Version. A working paper could be an earlier version.]
Related version(s)
[Provide details of related research outputs such as conference
papers, presentations, working papers and other outputs
where the relationship is not sequential in time.]
Later version(s)
[Provide details of later versions if known. For example if
the version in hand is the author-created final Accepted
Version, then the published version is later.]
Variation from published
[None (verbatim copy) | Typographical/
version if applicable
punctuation | Minor | Major]
(select one)
Notes about variation
[Eg, ‘Includes four statistical tables not
from published version
shown in the published version.’]
if applicable
Preferred citation
[Give your instructions here, for example a request not to
cite, or a recommended citation to the published version.]
DOI
[if publisher DOI is known, provide it here.]
Official publisher URL
[for example, a journal homepage.]
Stable URL
[for example a persistent URL in your
institutional repository, if known.]
Versions Toolkit
For readers – 7
For readers
Has the open access paper that I have
read been published?
If you are consulting this toolkit you are probably
If a paper has been deposited in a wel -
both a reader and an author. This section sets out
managed open access repository, there will
a few ideas for you to bear in mind when searching be a link to the published version if the paper
for and citing open access research papers.
has been published. Web search engines can
also help you to discover published versions.
Searching – to find all available papers
I do not have access to a published version,
At the time of writing, general search engines
can I find an open access version?
such as Google are the most comprehensive
source for content on the Internet and these
You can use search engines to retrieve open access
will pick up individual papers. Research papers
papers. When these have been placed in wel -
deposited in institutional repositories are
managed repositories they should be retrieved.
general y retrieved well by search engines.
Or, you can search for the author’s home page or
institution to look for a copy on personal websites.
If many versions of a paper are found on the web,
try searching in Google Scholar http://scholar.
Citing others’ work
google.com, which matches similar papers
by author and title and places them together.
Do respect authors’ wishes not to have
Google Scholar also presents published versions
their early work in progress cited, wherever
of papers near the top when these are available.
you see that they have requested this.
Academic search sites which cover open access
If you have found an open access version of a
institutional and subject repositories are
paper online and would like to cite it in your
becoming increasingly useful. For examples see
work, but wish to refer to the published version,
BASE www.base-search.net/ which tracks
you could consider citing both versions.
over 500 repositories or Intute Repository
Search from the UK http://irs.ukoln.ac.uk/
Not found an open access paper online?
If you want to obtain a paper and have not found
Finding the latest paper
an open access version that you can read, do
Look out for comments and notes in the
contact the author direct and ask for a copy of
paper which refer to ‘work in progress’, ‘draft’
the paper. Authors usual y welcome this kind
or ‘submitted version’. If you see these, check
of communication. You could suggest that they
for later versions of the paper before relying
deposit a copy in their institutional repository.
on or citing the version you have found.
8 – For repository staff
Versions Toolkit
For repository staff
• Ask how the text varies from that
of the published version:
• Help authors to present the latest versions
of their work to their readers by linking
Variance from published version
earlier and later versions of papers to each
None
Author version is a verbatim
other. Help authors even more by making the
copy of the publisher version
latest version most prominent, with earlier
versions linked behind. By doing this you will
reassure authors that they can leave earlier
Typographical/
Punctuation or other
versions of their work in the repository.
punctuation
grammatical changes which
• At deposit stage, ask the author or depositor
do not affect the meaning
whether there are related papers or materials
on the Internet which you can:
Minor
Minor differences between this
• link to from this record
and publisher version which could
• add to the repository
however affect a citation
• Help readers to discover everything they
Major
Major changes – reader advised to
wish to by linking to other related versions
check publisher version before citing
of research such as conference material,
working papers and reports to funders
• Implement a metadata scheme which
handles version identification wel , such as
the Scholarly Works Application Profile
• Incorporate any authors’ notes about variations
between versions, in the metadata records.
• For author-created versions, always indicate
the date of completion of manuscript clearly
• Indicate clearly in your repository whether
in your repository. If this is not forthcoming
the item is an author-created version
from the author please request it.
or a publisher-created version.
• Ask which version of an article you are
• Help authors to comply with publisher
being sent:
requirements by linking to official
published versions and providing
Draft
Early version circulated
copyright statements as necessary.
as work in progress
• Aim to acquire and store versions of
Submitted Version
The version that has been
research papers in open formats such as
submitted to a journal for
XML or open office document formats, so
peer review
that comparisons can be made between
Accepted Version
The author-created version
content of versions in future.
that incorporates referee
comments and is the version
accepted for publication
Published Version
The publisher-created
published version
Updated Version
A version updated
since publication
Versions Toolkit
Resources – 9
Resources
Copyright toolbox
Information for authors and publishers about
achieving a balance of rights in scholarly
Open access
communication. Includes sample licence to
Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
publish for authors wishing to retain copyright
The aims of open access, with an explanation
and sample wording to add to copyright transfer
of open access self-archiving and publication in
agreements in order to retain certain rights.
open access journals.
SURF Foundation and JISC.
www.soros.org/openaccess/
http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/
copyrighttoolbox/
Self Archiving FAQ for the Budapest
Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
SPARC Author Rights
Very comprehensive guidance on placing your
Includes the SPARC Author Addendum which
work in an open access repository.
authors can use to secure your rights as the author
www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/
of a journal article.
www.arl.org/sparc/author/index.html
Open Access briefing paper version 2
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).
Creative Commons License
www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/
This website takes you through the steps needed to
publications/pub_openaccess_v2.aspx
create a Creative Commons license for your work.
http://creativecommons.org/license/
Create Change
Funder policies on open access
Examines new opportunities in scholarly
communication in the Internet age and encourages JULIET – Research funders’ open
active participation by researchers in guiding the
access policies
course of change.
Summary information about funder policies on
www.createchange.org/
deposit of research outputs on open access with
links through to the full policies.
www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php
DRIVER Portal –
Information for researchers
Version identification
Information pages derived from the European
DRIVER Project.
This toolkit is available on the web at:
www.driver-support.eu/en/
www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/toolkit.html
researchers/index.html
VIF – Version Indentification Framework
This framework provides a set of guidelines on
Publisher copyright transfer agreement
versions of digital objects such as images, text
policies and author rights
and data.
SHERPA/RoMEO – Publisher copyright
www.lse.ac.uk/library/vif/
policies and self-archiving
Summary of permissions that are normal y given
as part of each publisher’s copyright transfer
agreement. Searchable by publisher name and
journal name.
www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
20 – Notes
Versions Toolkit
Notes
Disclaimer
The information contained in this document
is intended as general guidance. Due care
has been taken to ensure its accuracy. Where
issues relating to copyright and contractual
agreements between authors and publishers
are addressed, the information is not intended
and should not be construed as legal advice.
© LSE 2008
Equality and diversity are central to the aims and
objectives of LSE. The School actively promotes the
involvement of all students and staff in all areas of
School life and seeks to ensure that they are free
from discrimination on the grounds of gender,
race, social background, disability, religious or
political belief, age and sexual orientation. At LSE
we recognise that the elimination of discrimination
is integral to ensuring the best possible service
to students, staff and visitors to the School.
The London School of Economics and Political
Science is a School of the University of London.
It is a charity and is incorporated in England
as a company limited by guarantee under
the Companies Act (Reg. No. 70527)
The information in this toolkit can be made
available in alternative formats, on request.
Please contact: versions@lse.ac.uk
Design: LSE Design Unit
(www.lse.ac.uk/designunit)
Printed on 100% recycled paper
VERSIONS Project
(Versions of Eprints – user Requirements Study
and Investigation of the Need for Standards)
www.lse.ac.uk/versions
Top 5 hints
1 Consider and plan how you will store and name your personal
versions of files from now on
2 Keep permanently your own author-created Submitted
Versions and final author-created Accepted Versions of
research publications
3 Add the date of completion of manuscript to the first page of any
versions you create, especially your milestone versions
4 Consider carefully how you will disseminate your work before
signing any agreements with publishers and keep a copy of your
signed agreements
5 Deposit your work in an open access repository and think of your
readers by guiding them to your latest and published versions
v1 February 2008
Contact details
Frances Shipsey
eServices Librarian
Library
The London School of Economics and Political Science
10 Portugal Street
London WC2A 2HD
Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7229
Email: versions@lse.ac.uk
© LSE 2008
