Talk:Postprint

= AAM wording = Am I the only one who thinks that "author accepted manuscript" (sic!) is a bit of an awkward way to indicate a manuscript that has been accepted for publication? "Author's accepted manuscript" (see figure on https://camacuk.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005898287-What-is-the-author-accepted-manuscript-AAM-) sounds a bit better, but this wikipedia article uses "accepted author manuscript" which is equally awkward. Furthermore, it's sort of self-evident that it's the author's manuscript – whose else? – and "accepted manuscript" would do just fine in my opinion. Constructions like "author accepted manuscript" or "accepted author manuscript" always makes me think that someone forgot to include a hyphen, which would give the two phrases a rather interesting turn. The figure used in this wikipedia article uses a hyphen, by the way. Is there any reason to specifically mention that an author is involved with the manuscript?

Regards, Matthias (128.179.253.45 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC))