From: Brian Harrington <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:18:50 -0500 On 02/07/2012 06:48 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: Stevan Harnad<[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:37:01 -0500 > > (Contrary to the intuitions of many well-meaning librarians, the > difference between access denial and open access to the author's > refereed final draft is the difference between night and day for > researchers:http://bit.ly/OAnite It is a great strategic mistake to > insist on the version-of-record, or to worry that the author's > refereed final draft is somehow not "good enough". It is infinitely > preferable to no access: But what is cited is of course always the > archival version-of-record. The OA version is merely the version > accessed.) Maybe I'm just pedantic, but shouldn't the version accessed be the version cited? Admittedly, in the humanities fields I'm most familiar with, citation is often accompanied by quotation, or at least references to page numbers, so the need to consult the version-of-record seems self-evident. But even granting different citation practices in other fields, the idea of citing something that you haven't actually seen strikes me as going too far. If the refereed final draft is the only version that the researcher needs to consult, why not cite it? This seems especially true if the draft is the version that the reader is more likely to have access to. Brian -- Brian Harrington Content Development Coordinator Project MUSE The Johns Hopkins University Press [log in to unmask]