Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:52:05 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:47:23 -0500
> Sandy Thatcher wrote:
>
> a better approach... would be to require any government agency that
> funds research to require... a final report...
> to be posted immediately upon acceptance... openly accessible to all
The primary intended users of refereed research articles
are researchers; A "final report" is not what they need, and
it's not what OA is about.
> this approach is preferable because, unlike the current NIH
> policy, (1) it would make the research results immediately available
> (not after a 12-month delay...
What's needed immediately is the refereed research. What would be
preferable would be no 12-month delay...
> (2) it would make the results available in the exact form in
> which they were written up and not in the Green OA version
A " final report" is not the "exact form: in which results were written
up: the author's final, refereed draft (Green OA) is.
> citation of a final report is a preferable form of scholarship than
> citation of a preliminary version of an article, which may differ in
> significant respects from the archival version.
What researchers use and cite is the refereed article.
> I am not sure why people are claiming that publishers like Elsevier,
> by supporting the Research Works Act, are opposed to the dissemination
> of knowledge. Many AAP-member publishers, including Elsevier (and Penn
> State Press), permit authors of articles in the journals they publish
> to post Green OA versions on their institutional or personal web
> sites.
And RWA would prevent their funders from requiring them to do it.
Stevan Harnad
|
|
|