[Apologies for cross-posting]
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:21 AM, C.J.Smith wrote:
> CJS:
> To clarify, no, it is not 60% of the estimated refereed journal output of the OU that is deposited in full text format; a proportion is metadata-only items. Looking at my data over the last year, the split is around 56/44 (full text/metadata-only).
That would make it a 34% rate of unmandated deposit (which is still
higher than my estimate of 30%, but rather closer to it than to 60%!).
The Open University's interim incentive system is nevertheless a very
fruitful one (thanks to Colin), and worth other universities'
emulating -- while they redouble their efforts to achieve the real
solution, which is a (full-text!) deposit mandate.
> CJS:
> Picking up on your extra point, regarding the time invested to make an author version reflect fully the changes made after acceptance (i.e. during copyediting/proofreading), I personally do not feel this is necessary.
I agree completely: Rarely is there a substantive change after the
refereed final draft has been accepted for publication, and in the
rare case where it happens, the author will quite naturally want to
fix the final draft. But for the most part, the final draft will be
sufficient for the purposes of Green Open Access: to ensure that all
would-be users have access to the refereed research, and not just
those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the publisher's
version-of-record:
http://bit.ly/auversion
Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu Aug 19 2010 - 13:38:26 BST