From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:27:32 -0500

It's a little unclear whether this proposal is aimed at deposit and
preservation of just Green OA or final published versions of articles.
At one point the proposal talks about "peer reviewed and edited"
versions as accepted for publication, but what kind of "editing" is
meant here? Not clear that the reference is to the publisher's
copyediting. Also, the proposal at another point mentions "preferably"
the publisher's final version will be authorized to be deposited by a
nonexclusive license provision in the publishing contract. That seems
more like wishful thinking than a real directive.  It's too bad the
document did not adopt the NISO-recommended terminology for journal
article versions and use it consistently. Much potential confusion
would then have been avoided.

Sandy Thatcher


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 06:07:12 +0200
>
> AAU, ARL, and APGLU together.  Article seems outside paywall.  A
> response to the publishers' CHORUS proposal?
>
> http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/universities-and-libraries-envision-a-federated-system-for-public-access-to-research/44147
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> Georgetown