From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:41:15 +0100

Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though
it does show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a
'final' manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article.
Much inferior, actually, given that the published version purports to
justify the difference in cost to the reader wishing to access the
article. My experience – though by definition limited, of course – is
that the difference between final manuscript and published article is
mostly minor in terms of content, and mainly one of appearance.  If we
look beyond content, there is often a difference in findability,
usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and
enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that
those differences in usability and functionality are much more
important than any slight differences in content (which, if present at
all, are mostly of a linguistic nature, not a scientific one).

So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on
their own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage),
while keeping the fully functional, machine-readable version for the
professional scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls?
Not quite the same as true open access, clearly. That is, not as good
as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs or subsidies). But neither is
'green' with its fragmented nature, often low functionality (only
simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a distinction with
regard to access on the real basis of functionality differences
instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a
compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility)
and incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular'
access).

I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open
access while keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing
here would take away at least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented
nature of 'green'). It should not hurt the publisher more than free
access to the accepted final manuscript in repositories does, which
they seem to accept.

Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open
access to fully functional versions at the point of publication
('gold') don't need this compromise, and are to be preferred.

Some more thoughts on this here:
http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html

Jan Velterop


Begin forwarded message:

From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate
Immediate-Deposit)
Date: 20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET


Re: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/ (Elsevier Take-Down
Notice to Harvard)

See Exchange on Elsevier Website:
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices

December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Stevan Harnad: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the
double-talk and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier
authors retain the right to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on
their own institutional websites immediately, with no embargo? Just a
Yes or No, please… Stevan

December 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Tom Reller: Hello Dr. Harnad. I don’t agree with your characterization
of our explanation here, but nevertheless as requested, there is a
simple answer to your question – yes. Thank you.

December 20, 2013

Stevan Harnad: Tom, thank you. Then I suggest that the institutions of
Elsevier authors ignore the Elsevier take-down notices (and also adopt
an immediate-deposit mandate that is immune to all publisher take-down
notices by requiring immediate deposit, whether or not access to the
immediate-deposit is made immediately OA)… Stevan