1

My paper is in the late stage of peer-review and probably will be accepted once I complete the last minor revisions, but it is not formally accepted yet. During peer-review the manuscript changed quite a lot because of the helpful comments by the reviewers.

The journal is not open access and therefore I want to upload the manuscript to a public repository like arxiv to make it more accessible. The last version of my manuscript that I plan to upload is probably close to the final published version once it is accepted.

The publisher of the journal is Wiley-Blackwell, according to the sherpa/romeo database it is in the yellow category: http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=2050&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&format=full

They allow pre-prints, but it says 'pre-refereeing', so I am not completely sure if it is allowed to upload a pre-print at this stage.

spore234
  • 603
  • 8
  • 12
  • Ask them. They set the rules. – Buffy May 04 '19 at 15:21
  • Pre-refereeing sounds like it excludes exactly what you want to do. – henning May 04 '19 at 15:37
  • 1
    In addition to what @Buffy suggested, you could also ask your University library, or whoever is responsible at your institution, whether they have a wholesale open-access agreement with Wiley. Many universities have one these days, since they want to ensure that your work is widely distributed. – henning May 04 '19 at 15:43
  • @Buffy ,henning, thanks, I will ask the Editor. The Wiley pre-print policy asks to update the preprint with the accepted version so I assume they are OK with it anyways: https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/preprints-policy.html – spore234 May 04 '19 at 15:49
  • Is the specific journal not listed in the SHERPA/RoMEO database? – Anyon May 04 '19 at 16:38
  • @Anyon it is but it says the exact same thing as on the general Wiley page. It is a small journal. – spore234 May 04 '19 at 16:43
  • @henning I thought pre-refereeing means the initial submission without revision edits. I want to publish a revised version. – spore234 May 04 '19 at 16:44
  • @spore234 that's why I believe they don't want you to publish a post-refereed preprint (with revisions) but are okay with a pre-refereed one (without revisions). – henning May 04 '19 at 16:59

1 Answers1

3

The link to the Wiley policy states that you cannot update the pre-print (submitted version) with the accepted version: "Authors may also post the submitted version of a manuscript to non-commercial servers at any time. Authors are requested to update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article." The update is only a link to the published version. The accepted version can only be posted open access after 12 month as stated in Sherpa/RoMEO.

A version including changes that came in during peer review is no longer the submitted version.

FuzzyLeapfrog
  • 4,850
  • 1
  • 20
  • 44
  • 2
    thanks, I think you're right. On one hand I'm glad that I didn't publish the initial submission as a pre-print because peer review fixed some mistakes and made it better, on the other hand it's sad that I cannot make this improved version publicly available. I don't have the money for open access. – spore234 May 04 '19 at 17:33
  • 1
    @spore234 I totally understand that you are glad you didn't publish a pre-print with mistakes in it. On the other hand, I once published a pre-print with a significant mistake in it and - since the journal has open peer review - everybody can still see this mistake, read the report of the reviewer indicating my mistake and my response stating that the reviewer was correct, I fixed the mistake, and did all simulations again. Years later, I started to like this kind of openess - even in the described case - because it brings transperency to science and proves that we are really peer reviewing. – FuzzyLeapfrog May 04 '19 at 20:06
  • -1: A version including changes that came during peer review may or may not be a submitted version, but it is certainly not an accepted version at this stage. Wiley's policy being vague and ambiguous, the preprint can most probably be posted on arXiv. – Sylvain Ribault May 05 '19 at 09:56
  • @SylvainRibault How could the submitted version (pre-print) already include changes that came in later during peer review? We talk neither about the submitted nor the accepted version. It's an "in between version". The rules for the submitted version are only that loose because no peer review effort was put into by the journal/editor/reviewers yet. Therefore, the loose rules for the submitted version won't apply to the "in between version" we talk about. If I wasn't willing to ask the editor or just do what I want with my manuscript, I'd stick to the stricter rules for the accepted version. – FuzzyLeapfrog May 05 '19 at 11:24
  • @FuzzyLeapfrog : For some journals, any text you send to them is a submitted version, and you can have several submitted versions, including the final author's version before they take over and do their own formatting. Absent a more precise definition, anything that is written by the author (with no intervention from the journal) could therefore be considered a submitted version. – Sylvain Ribault May 05 '19 at 11:36
  • @SylvainRibault That's interesting! The last version before typesetting (journal formatting) is the accepted version. So far I've never heard of any publisher calling this version, or any other version that includes changes from peer review, a submitted version. Would be great to have some examples so I could check back with these journals/publishers. They always come up with new ideas/concepts I wanna learn about. Thank you! – FuzzyLeapfrog May 05 '19 at 18:46
  • @FuzzyLeapfrog : In JHEP's guidelines to authors https://jhep.sissa.it/jhep/help/helpLoader.jsp?pgType=author#revisedVersion " , they talk of "submitting revised versions". In their system the original submission and the revised versions are treated on the same footing. – Sylvain Ribault May 06 '19 at 09:32
  • @SylvainRibault Since JHEP is a SCOAP3 Open Access Journal, I am not surprised about this. Authors keep their copyright anyway. I'll nevertheless keep my eyes open for subscription journals treating the revised version like the initially submitted version. – FuzzyLeapfrog May 06 '19 at 10:29
  • @FuzzyLeapfrog : JHEP started in 1997, long before SCOAP3, it was not open access then, and its editorial process was nevertheless the same as today. – Sylvain Ribault May 07 '19 at 07:13
  • @SylvainRibault I'm very familiar with SCOAP3, when it started, how it works, and so on. If you say that even before JHEP became Open Access via SCOAP3 they had the same rules for revised versions as for the submitted version, I have to take your word for it because the website doesn't show a history of author guidelines. – FuzzyLeapfrog May 07 '19 at 07:40
  • @FuzzyLeapfrog : Yes, I know this only because I was publishing in JHEP from 2001 onwards. – Sylvain Ribault May 07 '19 at 12:43
  • Perfect, thank you! So they made/make a difference in the naming (submitted vs. revised version) but not in the treatment regarding self-archiving. I like that. – FuzzyLeapfrog May 07 '19 at 12:55