From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:51:44 -0600

I think Green OA versions are fine for various purposes including
classroom use and general information purposes, but I think it is
dangerous for scholarship to cite Green OA versions instead of
versions of record because of significant errors (such as in
quotations) that such Green OA versions may contain (as revealed in a
survey several volunteer copyeditors did of DASH repository articles
for a special issue of Against the Grain last year).

Sandy Thatcher



> 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