From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:41:18 +0000

In scholarly communication there is no unalterable Law of the Medes
and Persians stating that the "version of record" has to be published
by a publisher, nor that the attributes of the "version of record"
such as peer-review or a citeable link have to be provided by a
publisher. Some repositories are already exploring the feasibility of
providing such attributes with the author's final version in a
repository. Providing an alternative to the publisher's version as a
"version of record" on a large enough scale to give users confidence
in the system will take several years, but then it has only taken a
few years for the volume of open access content to reach critical mass
from a very low start. All the process needs is for a few large
repositories to start adding a citeable identifier and accurate
metadata to the peer-reviewed author's final version on a regular
basis, and Collette's readers will soon change their view of the green
OA  version. The research assessment authorities are now more willing
to accept a peer-reviewed repository version, although again such a
cultural change does take time to work through long-established
practices.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
________________________________________

From: Collette Mak <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:29:10 -0400

Our users want the official version with page numbers, the headings
and mark of the publisher etc.   When we've supplied the Green OA
links we generally get "I could have gotten that myself, I need the
published version."       What we may need is education about what
that Green OA copy is and, how to properly cite it.

Collette Mak
Outreach and Scholarly Communications Librarian
Hesburgh Libraries
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
e: [log in to unmask]