References: <200909150629161.SM03840_at_[64.239.149.125]>
<721C5FD7-B6DD-4C5D-9C3C-A651C3CD0DAD_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
<EMEW3|e87724ac058e36a4a66c0af79e862ef9l8EFGs03lac|ecs.soton.ac.uk|6DD-4C5D-
9C3C-A651C3CD0DAD_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
<002101ca3652$40ba2680$c22e7380$_at_com.au>
<4AB0C9BC.5030205_at_ulcc.ac.uk>
<6DB67D56-BE4B-4C2B-9B5B-35CE68863F8F_at_its.monash.edu.au>
<413600FA-0E7F-4507-B355-3F98155F85AF_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
<EMEW3|343ce026bf0654960b07a1d4454493c9l8FCyb03lac|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7F-4507-
B355-3F98155F85AF_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
<EE2B68CBA9D68B40ADDFE9C0DB724431361C5B08C6_at_jisc-ex1.jisc.ac.uk>
<4AC60261.2040303_at_xs4all.nl>
<5E392918B3B73E40B8283BAECDB027A125A5374CDF_at_MAPI.ad.kent.ac.uk>
<BLU0-SMTP19FFD0E2B7DD134EE81581A1D20_at_phx.gbl> A<4AC63739.5030001_at_xs4all.nl>
<509D52452C720B4EBB8E645500004BDD888006_at_ASPSHA2037.asp.multrix.! local>
<BLU0-SMTP100DA4DE1E9933DF23C37AAA1CF0_at_phx.gbl>
<942C1799-EDA5-439E-A4B7-2BF7E71D9B41_at_blackmesatech.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2009 19:02:10.0026 (UTC)
FILETIME=[29B35CA0:01CA4E93]
On 16-Oct-09 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [CS] wrote:
> CS: [Contrary to] the claim that there the differences
> between the last version of a paper sent in by the author and the
> paper that appears in the journal are always "completely trivial"
> ...many of the articles I've been involved with, as
> author or as journal editor, have had editorial changes I'd
> regard as important, not as trivial. Some of them have been
> improvements.
Any sensible author will of course incorporate into his public
postprint (final revised draft) any nontrivial correction resulting
from either refereeing or editing/copy-editing. (I wouldn't bother
transferring changes of "which" to "that" but reference corrections,
grammatical corrections and any [rarissimum] corrigendum of fact will
certainly be incorporated into the version the author is providing
free for one and all.)
The point is that *none of this requires the publisher's PDF*, hence
it is a colossal strategic and practical error to balk at making the
postprint OA now (or at mandating that it be made OA now) and hold out
instead for a day when the publisher's PDF can and will be available
online for free.
Whenever this undying issue of postprint vs. PDF arises, the very same
nonsequiturs keep being raised. So I am under no illusions when I say,
again, and again once and for all: OA is about *access to research*,
and access to the postprint is infinitely preferable and more
beneficial to the progress of research than the perils of PDF/
postprint discrepancies that those who keep misunderstanding what is
really at stake keep banging on about instead.
Harrumph,
Ezekiel
> > On 5-Oct 09 Kuil, van der Annemiek [AK] wrote:
> > > AK: Apparently there are differences between countries (although
> > > acadamia goes beyond borders) and therefore it is difficult to
> > > generalise and say that ....
> > >
> > > > SH: "(4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the
> > > > author's self-archived final refereed, revised draft are
> > > > completely trivial. This is not something a researcher would
> > > > worry about. Researchers are worried about access denial, not PDF."
> > >
> > > AK: ... this is certainly not the case in the Netherlands. ..
>
> On 5 Oct 2009, at 07:11 , Stevan Harnad [SH] wrote:
> > SH: This fundamental misunderstanding has arisen, and been
> > discussed, many times before.
> >
> > There are no differences whatsoever among researchers -- either in
> > terms of country or in terms of discipline -- when one puts the
> > question correctly (i.e., in terms of actual access needs,
> > conditions and contingencies today, rather than some other ideal
> > contingency):
> > ...
> > CORRECT (OPEN-ACCESS-RELEVANT) WAY TO PUT THE QUESTION:
> >
> > -- CORRECT USER VERSION: If you have no access to the published
> > PDF, would you rather have access to the author's self-archived
> > final refereed draft (postprint), or no access at all?
> >
> > -- CORRECT AUTHOR VERSION: If they have no access to the published
> > PDF, would you rather users have access to your self-archived final
> > refereed postprint, or no access at all?
>
> CS: Those are certainly interesting and useful questions to ask, and
> the answers I'd expect them to get certainly would tend to support
> the kind of Green OA Steven Harnad advocates.
>
> But they don't seem to support the claim that there the differences
> between the last version of a paper sent in by the author and the
> paper that appears in the journal are always "completely trivial."
>
> Certainly many of the articles I've been involved with, as
> author or as journal editor, have had editorial changes I'd
> regard as important, not as trivial. Some of them have been
> improvements.
Received on Fri Oct 16 2009 - 20:36:15 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:57 GMT