Our article is, indeed, OA (as the copyright line on the first page makes
clear). Sorry about the non-working links to the Appendices - I will ask
the publisher if this can be corrected.
The relevant questions are as follows:
"25 Do you access self-archived versions of other authors' articles, as
opposed to the published version on the journal site?
When I do have access to the published version: Whenever
possible/Sometimes/Rarely/Never
When I don't have access to the published version: Whenever possible/
Sometimes/Rarely/Never
26 How do you identify the self-archived version? (Please tick all
those that apply)
Link provided by author/Online search engine(s)/Search in repository/ies/Do
not use self-archived version/Other (please provide details)
27 If you search in repositories, please name the three in which you
have most recently searched
1/2/3
28 Which version(s) are you happy to access?
Fully functional published version/Non-functional PDF of published
version/Author's final version after peer review and copy-editing/Author's
final version after peer review but before copy-editing/Any version will
do/Other (please give details)"
We did not ask why they did not access self-archived versions, or indeed
whether they tried but were unable to do so - perhaps we should have.
As it happens, we are both entirely open-minded about OA, and tried very
hard to make all our questions neutral and non-leading (with one
embarrassing exception...).
Sally Morris
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Marc Couture
Sent: 18 January 2010 16:25
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)
On 17-Jan-10, at 2:39 PM, Sally Morris wrote:
>
> Those who look beyond the abstract will find that we did, indeed, ask
> where they looked for articles
>
As one who has indeed looked beyond the abstract (read the whole paper
in fact), I have some difficulty understanding what the authors mean
precisely by "using", "accessing" "identifying" self-archived
articles, as well as by "whenever possible", so that it is somewhat
difficult to sort out the various numbers and percentages stated in p.
230-231, including those quoted in previous posts.
Perhaps the exact wording of the questionnaire would help clarify the
issue, but unfortunately the DOI-based hyperlink to Appendix 1: Text
of survey (
http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009318) don't seem to work.
What I think I can deduce is that close to 50% of those who didn't
have access to the published version didn't even look for a
self-archived version (but I'm not sure if I my reasoning is right,
because the paper refers to those who "did not [never?] use
self-archived versions"). And we don't know how often those who did
look for such a version were able to find one.
What I found most interesting though - and more useful, from an
OA-advocacy standpoint - is the fact that there was much confusion
among participants about what is a repository, and whether an article
(or journal) is OA or not.
As to the latter issue, one can argue that institutionally-provided
Internet access and use of proxies do blur the distinction. For
instance, I have no obvious way to determine if Morris & Thorn's
paper, which I freely accessed from home (with proxy) on the publisher
website, is OA or not (a Google Scholar search seems to indicate it
isn't).
Marc Couture
Received on Tue Jan 19 2010 - 16:43:26 GMT