I think Jean-Claude may have misunderstood the question at issue here:
It concerns the depositing of peer-reviewed, published articles in the
author's Institutional Repository so that they can be accessed by all
would-be users, not just those who can afford access to the journal in
which it was published.
The specific question was about how to provide the link to the
publisher's official version, if authors wish to provide it (for
scholarly purposes, as they should!), or because a Green publisher has
requested that it be provided, in exchange for their blessing on
immediate OA self-archiving.
There is not issue of citability: The published article is perfectly
citable, as always. Nor is there any issue of institutional "branding":
the branding is done by the peer-reviewed journal and its track-record
for quality. The institution merely provides access to the final
refereed draft:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
> One important suggestion in this regard is to make the stored article
> citable.
The stored article is (the author's final refereed draft ["postprint"]
of) a published, peer-reviewed journal article.
Journal articles are already citable (author, date, title, journalname,
volume, issue, pages, etc.).
In addition, it is a good idea to have a link, in the citation itself,
to an openly accessible version of the published article (not just the
publisher's toll-access version).
That is what depositing the postprint in the author's Institutional
Repository is for: To provide free access to the published article.
Not to provide something else, citable in its own right (except of
course the pre-refereeing preprint, is should only be consulted and
cited until the refereed postprint becomes available).
> Any academic institution with a good name can provide the
> check needed to guarantee this status to any stored article.
It is ambiguous whether what Jean-Claude means here is that the
institution should make sure that what has been deposited by the author as
a postprint of the journal-published article is indeed the final refereed
draft of the published journal article. (Such institutional authentication
is welcome, but it is not, strictly speaking, necessary, as what is mostly
missing now is the postprints themselves, not their authentications.)
Or what Jean-Claude may mean here is an extension of the "branding" that
has been discussed before -- and that (in my view) conflates unpublished
papers, unrefereed preprints, and published postprints.
The query below pertained to refereed postprints, OA's target, not to
unpublished papers in need of an institutional "brand."
Harnad, S. (2005) Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open Access:
The Case Against Mixing Up Green and Gold. Ariadne 42. (Japanese
version)
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10675/
> From that
> point on, the link to the publisher, even if needed, loses importance
> because the open nature of the article will steer users in its
> direction.
The link to the publisher of a published article loses its importance? I
agree it is not important for access, given that the OA version is
accessible and the user cannot afford the toll-access version. But
surely the publisher link is useful for the scholarly record -- and in
case anyone may wish to compare the versions. (Not to mention that some
publishers "require" it as a condition for self-archiving the postprint.)
> Of course, some persistent access means will also be needed.
IR's provide persistent access; so do publishers. What's still missing
today is 85% of the postprints to which persistent access can then
be provided! (That's what the mandates are for.) Meanwhile, no harm
in accommodating publishers' minor conditions on endorsing Green OA
self-archiving -- especially if it also serves a useful scholarly
purpose.)
Stevan Harnad
> Le mardi 22 avril 2008 à 10:36 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > On 22-Apr-08, at 10:12 AM, dspace-general-request_at_mit.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:24:29 -0700
> > > From: "Jeremy C. Shellhase" <jcs -- lib-mail.humboldt.edu>
> > >
> > > We're working to include more of our faculty's published works in
> > > our instance of dspace, Humboldt Digital Scholar, and wanted to pose
> > > a couple questions about "best practices" in complying with some of
> > > the RoMEO green publishers requirements, before we got too far along
> > > in the work.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SHERPA RoMEO "Green" is not quite the right category, because it means
> > "BOTH postprint-Green AND preprint-Green" whereas what you should be
> > covering is postprint-Green, whether or not the publisher also happens
> > to be preprint-Green, and you should also look carefully at the
> > preprint Greens, because many of them mean "postprint" (author's final
> > refereed draft) even though they say "preprint" (unrefereed draft)
> > wrongly thinking that "postprint" means publisher's PDF!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Publishers frequently ask for a link back to their online presence
> > > with statements like:
> > > * Must link to publisher version
> > > * Must link to publisher version or journal home page
> > > * Must link to APA journal home page
> > > We've looked in the metadata fields available and cannot really find
> > > a perfect place for this information and link. Has anyone set a
> > > standard practice for this using metadata?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There should be an "other locations" field in DSpace, as there is in
> > EPrints. (If not, someone should quickly create/configure one.)
> >
> >
> > That's the place to put the link to the publisher link.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The other option is to include this information as a preliminary
> > > page added to the actual submission, embedding the information in
> > > the digital object itself. If there are any other great ideas
> > > floating around, we'd sure like to hear.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, that's an option, and not bad as scholarly practice. But since it
> > entails more work for the author, and since it's already like pulling
> > teeth to get them to deposit, it's probably more efficient to use the
> > "other locations" field in the IR interface.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Publishers frequently state that "Publisher version cannot be used",
> > > allowing only the author's pre or post refereeing drafts. Well, as
> > > it turns out, many of the faculty that have time to consider
> > > archiving their legacy are emeritus or close to it and the
> > > publications they're interested in archiving no longer have a
> > > digital author's copy available. We're stuck with how to proceed,
> > > if indeed we can. Does scanning and OCRing a printed copy of an
> > > article satisfy this requirement?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree completely with the previous reply by Shane Beers below: Just
> > "repurpose" the PDF or scanned OCR.
> >
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Shane Beers <sbeers -- gmu.edu>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've discussed this in past dspace threads, but I'll mention it
> > > > again
> > > > here. I frequently use a software called ABBYY FineReader Pro
> > > > (http://www.abbyy.com/finereader8/?param=44890
> > > > ), which allows one to import an existing PDF and re-purpose the
> > > > content. I've been thinking about writing up a guide to using
> > > > ABBYY to
> > > > do this, but it's not difficult to figure out, in my opinion.
> > > > Essentially you take the content and de-select things like page
> > > > headers/footers/etc and create a new PDF that uses the same
> > > > textual
> > > > content, but does not contain any publisher information. This
> > > > successfully side-steps that issue, in my not-a-lawyer point of
> > > > view.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Université de Montréal
>
Received on Wed Apr 23 2008 - 15:01:29 BST