From: "Hosburgh, Nathan" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:33:06 -0600

Stevan,

If I define Green OA as simply "OA delivered by repositories" (as
defined by Peter Suber and others) then it becomes clear that the
discrepancies I mentioned are possible.  It sounds like you are using
a more narrow definition of Green OA as the final, peer-reviewed
draft.

I don't think there would be as much controversy surrounding this
issue if we were all talking about the final, peer-reviewed draft.
Repositories are not uniformly populated with final, peer-reviewed
drafts.  But, even if they were, this would still leave the issue of
further copy editing post peer review.

Even if we are using "green" as designated by SHERPA/RoMEO, this still
leaves open the possibility that the repository version is a pre-print
(version of the paper before peer review).

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=advanced&version=#colours

Since we're not living in a homogenous Green OA world, I would not use
the availability of Green OA as a deselection criteria as Rick
Anderson suggests.  Having worked in ILL for a number of years, I
agree with Chuck Hamaker that "the goal is to provide the version of
record of an article as expeditiously as possible, and at the lowest
cost possible in the most convenient form".  I can say from experience
that faculty/researchers/scholars are concerned with getting their
hands on the version of record.  If they have to pay for it out of
their own pocket, they will often do so.  I saw this firsthand even
when an OA version was available from a repository.

To answer the following:

> (5) For users deprived of access to any version at all, all of these points are utter trivia.

This is true for some users, not all users.  Some users do not find
these points trivial.

> Not content with Green compared to what? Nothing?

Faculty/researchers/scholars are sometimes not content with the Green
OA version compared to the version of record/publisher's PDF for the
reasons I've already mentioned.

Nathan Hosburgh

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

From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:24:29 +0200

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM, "Hosburgh, Nathan" wrote:

> Pagination is only one way in which a Green OA article may differ from
> its version of record.  Other examples:
>
> - incomplete/missing references
> - missing charts/figures
> - missing/revised content b/n versions due to peer review & editing
> - etc.

(1) We are talking about the final, peer-reviewed draft (so the PR is
done, and in).

(2) What missing references, charts, figures?

(3) Citations are to the published version, full bibliographic data,
page-spans, etc.

(4) Quotes can be cited giving section heading and paragraph number.

(5) For users deprived of access to any version at all, all of these
points are utter trivia.

> I'm not saying this is the case with all/most Green OA articles, but
> there is certainly the potential for these discrepancies.  So, I think
> Sandy is right that some faculty/scholars/researchers will not be
> content with a Green OA version.  Green OA relies to some extent on
> the depositors (whether researchers or repository admins) to ensure
> that the archival version is useful.

Not content with Green compared to what? Nothing?

And it is authors who will not be content unless their green version
contains all it needs to contain.

Stevan Harnad