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