From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
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?

Sally Morris
Email:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: "Boyter, Leslie" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:25:51 -0800

Stevan,

I am not saying anyone should be denied access to the author's version. I
have no problem with OA. In fact, as someone with little to no access to
expensive scientific journals, I am happy to be able to read any version I
can get.

I only have a problem with people implying they read the version of record
(by citing it) when they really read and quoted the author's version. I do
not necessarily have any particular attachment to the version of record, I
just believe in being clear/straightforward/honest about what you actually
read.

I haven't had a chance to read the full response from Sean Andrews yet, but
from what I was able to skim so far I agree with most of it.
Citing the actual version you read (especially when there are many
iterations) makes the most sense to me. If it was revamped after you
read/cited it, at least the reader knows which version you read/quoted.
Depending on the infrastructure and/or how the versions are
posted/published, the prior versions may or may not be accessible anymore,
so I may never be able to read what you read, but at least I know which
version it was and why it may or may not differ from the version I am able
to access.

Yes, I may be idealistic, but I think accuracy in citation is an appropriate
ideal. And it's not really that difficult to do (as compared to many other
ideals). In fact, it's probably just as easy to cite what you read as it is
to cite the version of record.

So, you have my blessings to go forth with OA (as if my blessing matters
anyway)... just cite what you actually read.

~Leslie

-----Original Message-----
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