On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Sally Morris wrote:
> my own view is that the 'H-O solution' is not only contrary to
> the spirit of agreements with publishers, but also profoundly unhelpful
> to readers. I think that it is far more important that we all work
> together to agree a system of nomenclature for journal versions, metadata
> to express this, and a protocol for forward and backward linking between
> versions. I can think of at least the following versions:
The two are not mutually exclusive. We definitely can and should all
"work together to agree a system of nomenclature for journal versions,
metadata to express this, and a protocol for forward and backward
linking between versions. I can think of at least the following
versions"
but, in addition to that, authors definitely can and should provide a
supplementary self-archived open-acces version for all those would-be users who
cannot afford access to the toll-access version.
But what can be more important for the would-be reader than access to the text
itself? What can be more profoundly unhelpful than access denial? Of what use
is a well-identified and linked text if the reader cannot access it? (And would
even an ill-linked text not be infinitely better than no text at all?)
> Pre-submission version (may be more than one)
> Submission version (may be more than one if returned for amendment
> and resubmission)
> Accepted version, after peer review
> Edited version, prior to publication
> Formatted definitive publication version (e.g. PDF) but without
> functionality
> Fully edited, formatted and functional definitive version (i.e. on
> publisher's site)
> Post-publication version, with addenda/errata (may be more than one)
The most important version for would-be users, is the text, with all substantive
corrections and updates: That is what the author should self-archive. (*Of course*
it should identify itself as what it is, and link to all the other versions,
especially the definitive publisher's version. Good scholarly practice alone would
already dictate that!)
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#23.Version
> In a world where multiple versions may proliferate, I think we all -
> authors, universities and publishers alike - owe it to readers to tell
> them what they are looking at, and where other versions (in particular,
> the definitive version with or without functionality, which is the only
> version which should properly be cited) may be found.
I agree completely! But the other thing that authors and their unversities
(but not necessarily publishers) owe to both their readers and themselves
(and research productivity and progress itself), is a supplementary OA
version for all those would-be readers who cannot afford to access the
definitive version.
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
Received on Sat Dec 04 2004 - 15:53:12 GMT