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