From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:36:11 +0000

Straightforward question:

Since the reason we are discussing authors' refereed, accepted final
drafts versus publisher's copy-edited versions of record here is not
to compare their relative merits but to determine what Open Access
mandates should mandate, do those who point out (correctly) the
(possible) shortcomings of the author's draft mean to imply that it is
better that would-be users who are denied access to the publisher's
version because their institutions cannot afford a subscription should
be denied access to the author's version as well, because of the
(possible) shortcomings of the author's draft?

Because it is as simple as that; all the rest has nothing to do with
the practical reality of Open Access (OA) but with scholarly ideals.

If we are to reach 100% OA in this decade instead of losing another decade
dithering, bickering and digressions, then research funders and research
institutions need to mandate author self-archiving. The version with the least
publisher restrictions on it is the author's final draft. Over 60% of
journals, including most of the top journals, endorse immediate OA
self-archiviong of the author's final draft, but not the publisher's
version of record. (The rest don't endorse any form of immediate OA.)

Are we, in turn, going to endorse this mandate (which -- so far adopted
by only 200 institutions -- needs all the help it can get) or are we
going to continue debating the relative merits of "that" versus "which"?

Stevan Harnad

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: "Boyter, Leslie" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:47:52 -0800
>
> My two cents--
>
> I think this is a frightening practice:
>
>> (4) One can quote from the OA version (which is usually identical to the version-of-record, apart from minor copy-editing).
>
>
> Can you imagine the "minor copy-editing" required for an article that
> might completely change the meaning of a sentence or paragraph? I can.
> I have seen a ridiculous number of papers written by people that leave
> out "minor" words. The author does not see it because (s)he reads the
> sentences, paragraphs, etc as (s)he means them (not as they are
> actually written).
>
> Little things, like the word "not" being left out of a sentence,
> COMPLETELY change the meaning of a sentence. You can assume the reader
> will understand, based on context, that "not" should be there.
> However, if the paper is plagued with "minor" errors like this, it
> could be entirely misunderstood (or, rather, understood as it is
> written and not as it is meant).
>
> If you are going to cite the version of record, you better read the
> version of record. If you are only going to read the OA version, cite
> the OA version. At the very least, please do the following:
>
>> (7) One can (and should) add to the canonical citation the URL of the OA version.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I realize editors/proofreaders miss things too (I
> have seen a number of edited articles, textbooks, etc containing
> errors that cause confusion). I just think if you are going to cite
> something, you better read it first. You never know what changes might
> be made, minor or not, between the version you are reading and the
> version of record. They very well may be important changes.
>
>
> ~Leslie R Boyter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:42:01 -0500
>
> On 2012-02-08, at 9:41 PM,  Brian Harrington wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm just pedantic, but shouldn't the version accessed be the
>> version cited?  Admittedly, in the humanities fields I'm most familiar
>> with, citation is often accompanied by quotation, or at least
>> references to page numbers, so the need to consult the
>> version-of-record seems self-evident.  But even granting different
>> citation practices in other fields, the idea of citing something that
>> you haven't actually seen strikes me as going too far.  If the
>> refereed final draft is the only version that the researcher needs to
>> consult, why not cite it?  This seems especially true if the draft is
>> the version that the reader is more likely to have access to.
>
>
> (1) The OA version is for would-be users who do not have access to the
> version-of-record because their universities cannot afford access.
>
> (2) For such users, OA means the difference between being able to
> read, use, apply and cite an article, or being unable to do so.
>
> (3) The reason the refereed final draft is the version that OA
> mandates specify is that it has fewer publisher restrictions
> (copyright, embargoes) on it than does the version-of-record..
>
> (4) One can quote from the OA version (which is usually identical to
> the version-of-record, apart from minor copy-editing).
>
> (5) The locus of quotes can beindicated by section headings and
> paragraph numbers when page numbers are unavailable.
>
> (6) One reads and quotes from the version one has accessed (whether
> the paper journal on the shelf, the publisher's archival version, a
> photocopy, or the author's refereed final draft), but one cites the
> canonical version-of-record in all cases.
>
> (7) One can (and should) add to the canonical citation the URL of the
> OA version.
>
> Stevan Harnad