From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:18:07 +0000

Surely it is obvious that the great majority of scholars would wish to know
whether there has been a retraction or correction to the definitive version
of the article. For Professor Harnad this may be irrelevant - see his last
sentence. He has one purpose in life (it would seem) and that is the
achievement of total open access as quickly as possible. Lots of other
people live in the present and want to extend knowledge in the present using
what the present mixed systems of access offer them.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:44:37 -0500

> From: Sally Morris on Liblicence
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:28:18 +0000
>
> Unless you also provide the date when you read it, people may not know
> whether a correction/retraction/whatever had been appended to the VoR at
> that time?

Date/Version read is helpful, feasible, advisable -- but a
straightforward matter of scholarly practice (which will not be
decided on the liblicense Forum!).

My comments are only about the bearing of the versions question on OA
and OA mandates.

In particular:

"Is accessing, quoting and citing the author's refereed, revised,
accepted final draft good enough for scholars and scientists when they
are denied access to the publisher's version-of-record, because they
or their institution cannot afford subscription/license/pay-per-view
access?"

The answer is a resounding, unambiguous, unequivocal  "YES".
All the rest is irrelevant,  and just equivocation or question-begging.

Stevan Harnad