Re: [EP-underground] Re: The archival status of archived papers

Suggestions are welcome...

I'd be very careful on this function because of prior discussions.
Specifically, if this is an *archive*, then entries must not go away or
change. Allowing multiple copies under a single link with versions would
work if all versions remain available.

However, we also need to consider what is to be done by the author when,
inevitably, the wrong paper, or a paper with a serious error is
archived. Clearly this needs to be corrected for both reader and author,
but changing it conflicts with the intent of the archive.

I don't mean for trivial word errors, but ones which make the paper
incorrect thru some oversight of the author or editor during submission,
which is not caught before archival. This should be a rare occurence,
yet because of the potential impact on the author & institution, it must
be corrected.

Here is my specific suggestion for this situation. Assuming a versions
system is in place, I'd add a editor only comment field to each version
that can be used to specify what has changed and why. To avoid trivial
use of this, the author must convince the editor why the new version is
necessary, which then becomes the Version Update field contents.

When a paper *must* be withdrawn from access due to eggregious error,
security or copyright violation or other serious reason, the editor must
convince the owner of the archive to do the withdrawal and make the
appropriate entry in the Withdrawal Note field. 

By mandating (thru software) the next organizational level up in each
case, this will prevent trivial use of the version or withdrawal
function, and makes sure that misuse of these functions will be visible,
and therefore only used when appropriate. 

Bill Nicholls
http://www.billswrite.com

Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
> 
> I'm considering adding version control to the files. This is going to be
> needed for the oft discussed j-prints (eprints with peer review)
> 
> I think for archives like ECS letting the author un-deposit then resubmit is
> probably OK, but bad for cogprints. I'm considering adding it as an *option*
> which the archive admin can enable/disable.
> 
> This is definitely a quality vs. quantity issue. ECS EPrints is already such
> a state I don't think it can hurt. Cogprints is another matter.
> 
> Suggestions of a perfect(better) solution are more than welcome.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 07:40:34 +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, J Adrian Pickering wrote:
> >
> > > It isn't just a technical issue.
> > >
> > > If you follow Mark's solution you end up with the risk of people citing
> > > papers that don't contain the information they cite anymore.
> >
> > Mark suggested that an archived article should be a persisting object,
> > with a persisting identifier. That seems reasonable. Now if there have
> > been several successive versions of a paper (which the author wants to
> > consider as successive versions rather than new papers), then it also
> > seems reasonable that the archive should link all the successive
> > versions and point to the latest one by default.
> >
> > All the prior versions are preserved, and accessible (unless the archive
> > has a policy allowing withdrawal -- a policy that should not be
> > encouraged).
> >
> > It is the user's or citer's responsibility to specify which version they
> > have used/cited, if there are more than one. That will become part of
> > good scholarship, just as spelling the author's name correctly is.
> >
> > So we need both unique identifier for a generic paper and a unique
> > identifier for a specific draft of that paper.
> >
> > > This is particularly likely when the matter being discussed is
> > > controversial. A citation strictly refers to a manifestation/version
> > > not the generic paper.
> >
> > Correct. It refers to a specific draft, usually with a calendar date and
> > some other identifying features.
> >
> > > If the person making the citation wishes to change the citation to a later
> > > version then that is *their* right. The link is *their* link, not the
> > > target's. If you have 'published' something then it is in the public domain
> > > and you must expect people to cite it (and that version).
> >
> > I mostly agree. But this seems to be covered by providing unique version
> > identifies; it does not prevent the Archive from defaulting to the most
> > recent version -- while offering the earlier versions too.
> >
> > It might be making a subtle difference in the view people are taking on
> > this whether they are thinking of the Archive as a centralized one
> > (rather like a journal) or a distributed institutional one (rather like
> > author-provided reprints). It is conceivable that different drafts of a
> > paper will be in different archives. Those distributed versions too,
> > need to be trackable and integrated. My technical inexpertise leaves me
> > unable to propose how to do this, but it is the hardest-case scenario,
> > and the one we should aim to cover, eventually. Assuming it will all
> > be in one central archive is probably unrealistic (and unnecessary, in the
> > spirit of distributed OAI archiving and interoperability).
> >
> > To my layman's ear it sounds as if every version of a paper will need a
> > unique version identifier, and in addition, there will need to be some
> > interoperable ways of integrating different versions as being different
> > versions of the same paper. The new scholarship will be, at the gross
> > level, concerned only with citing the generic paper (without worrying
> > about version fine-tuning), but the careful scholars need to have the
> > option of specifying the version too, uniquely, for those cases where
> > it matters.
> >
> > > I agree that archive items should persist and, therefore, the references to
> > > them. The relationship between the versions should be issue to click
> > > through too.
> > >
> > > Regards the 'user' query, they need to be told not to submit so many
> > > versions i.e. *think* carefully before submission! This is a matter of
> > > policy and governs the degree of 'resistance' there is to making
> > > submissions. There needs to be some otherwise the quality level drop.
> >
> > It cuts both ways. Yes, authors should not start archiving willy-nilly
> > every raw draft and every afterthought. But they should not feel
> > constrained in doing corrections and updates whenever they are needed
> > too. Authors should know, though, that from the moment they place a draft
> > into a public open-access archive, it may be read, cited, and pointed to
> > -- that specific draft -- in perpetuum. That is part of what it means
> > to have archived something publicly.
> >
> > I'm sure scholars will easily get a sense for this, as they have for
> > everything else. In the beginning some will fumble and treat the
> > archive as labile first drafts or lapidary touch-me-nots, but experience
> > and feedback will calibrate everyone's practice and reflexes. The
> > Archives just have to make sure they do not pre-judge or short-circuit
> > any important options a priori.
> >
> > Stevan
> >
> > > A/
> > >
> > >
> > > >Stevan Harnad
> > > >
> > > >On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 08:27  PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now it is conceivable that the eprints architecture can be slightly
> > > > > > modified, so that the old, suppressed URL for the deleted paper
> > > > > > automatically redirects to the new draft if someone tries to access
> > > > > > the old one. That I have to let Chris reply about. Here I have merely
> > > > > > explained the rationale for not having designed the archive so a paper
> > > > > > could be deposited, and then modified willy-nilly under the same URL.
> > > > > > For that would not have been an archive at all, and user complaints,
> > > > > > about trying to use and cite a moving target, would have far
> > > > > > out-numbered
> > > > > > depositor complaints about what to do with after-thoughts and
> > > > > > successive
> > > > > > drafts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that is one way to look at it. On the other hand, arXiv.org uses
> > > > > version numbers and the persistent name/id and URL (say hep-th/0210311
> > > > > and http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210311) always points to the latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > with links to the earlier versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe you are advocating a poor design choice here. One cannot
> > > > > overemphasize
> > > > > the importance of human-friendly persistent names that are easily
> > > > > converted
> > > > > to URL's for linking and quick location. Patching the system to
> > > > > redirect to the
> > > > > latest linked version is a hack. Is one actually able to download
> > > > > the earlier version (which is what was cited)? Generally, a better
> > > > > approach
> > > > > is to give a good persistent name to a "work" and not a single
> > > > > manifestation
> > > > > of that work (whether it be a particular format or a particular
> > > > > version) and
> > > > > then give a reader a single point of entry into the system that can be
> > > > > bookmarked
> > > > > or cited reliably which gives a choice of what to download. Cutting off
> > > > > access
> > > > > to an earlier, citeable version is a mistake. Archives should not
> > > > > delete items
> > > > > or make them hard to access - rather they should show items in context
> > > > > and give easy access to an item's history and versioning with a single
> > > > > identifier for the work taken as a whole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Doyle
> > > > > Manager, Product Development
> > > > > The American Physical Society
> > > > >
> > >
> 
> --
>     Christopher Gutteridge -- [email protected] -- +44 (0)23 8059 4833
> 
>                                                                   ,___O<
>  _________________________________________________________________(___)____
> |                                   |                                      |
> | Now Playing: "" from -            | "Just once I'd like to learn a       |
> |                                   | lesson without something exploding"  |
> |                                   | - Malcolm in the Middle              |
> |___________________________________|______________________________________|
THREADER-LINK: billn.vcf
From [email protected] Tue Dec  3 16:52:26 2002
received: from iu-mssg-mbx08.ads.iu.edu ([129.79.1.217]) by iu-mssg-smtp04.ads.iu.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:51:42 -0500
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
mime-version: 1.0
content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
subject: [EP-underground] changing the way multiple authors is displayed in a citation.
date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:51:41 -0500
message-id: <29F16A81821EE844861C4349FE34406B25F78E@iu-mssg-mbx08.exchange.iu.edu>
x-ms-has-attach: 
x-ms-tnef-correlator: 
thread-topic: [EP-underground] Re: The archival status of archived papers
thread-index: AcKa68mjegqmXwgQTuaJzzvNAvBY3QAAELmg
from: "Whitsel, Kurt W" <[email protected]>
to: "EPrints Underground List" <[email protected]>
x-originalarrivaltime: 03 Dec 2002 16:51:42.0313 (UTC) FILETIME=[41966590:01C29AEC]
x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean
content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by seer.ecs.soton.ac.uk id gB3GqP60012246
sender: [email protected]
precedence: bulk
reply-to: EPrints Underground List <[email protected]>


I have been asked to change the way multiple authors are
displayed in a citation in Eprints 2.

I have looked hard through the configuration files and code and could not find it.
I admit this question is sort of lame but maybe someone knows the answer off the top of thier head.

Any Suggestions??