From: Brian Harrington <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:18:50 -0500

On 02/07/2012 06:48 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: Stevan Harnad<[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:37:01 -0500
>
> (Contrary to the intuitions of many well-meaning librarians, the
> difference between access denial and open access to the author's
> refereed final draft is the difference between night and day for
> researchers:http://bit.ly/OAnite  It is a great strategic mistake to
> insist on the version-of-record, or to worry that the author's
> refereed final draft is somehow not "good enough". It is infinitely
> preferable to no access: But what is cited is of course always the
> archival version-of-record. The OA version is merely the version
> accessed.)

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.

Brian

--
Brian Harrington
Content Development Coordinator
Project MUSE
The Johns Hopkins University Press
[log in to unmask]