From: "Hosburgh, Nathan" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:33:06 -0600 Stevan, If I define Green OA as simply "OA delivered by repositories" (as defined by Peter Suber and others) then it becomes clear that the discrepancies I mentioned are possible. It sounds like you are using a more narrow definition of Green OA as the final, peer-reviewed draft. I don't think there would be as much controversy surrounding this issue if we were all talking about the final, peer-reviewed draft. Repositories are not uniformly populated with final, peer-reviewed drafts. But, even if they were, this would still leave the issue of further copy editing post peer review. Even if we are using "green" as designated by SHERPA/RoMEO, this still leaves open the possibility that the repository version is a pre-print (version of the paper before peer review). http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=advanced&version=#colours Since we're not living in a homogenous Green OA world, I would not use the availability of Green OA as a deselection criteria as Rick Anderson suggests. Having worked in ILL for a number of years, I agree with Chuck Hamaker that "the goal is to provide the version of record of an article as expeditiously as possible, and at the lowest cost possible in the most convenient form". I can say from experience that faculty/researchers/scholars are concerned with getting their hands on the version of record. If they have to pay for it out of their own pocket, they will often do so. I saw this firsthand even when an OA version was available from a repository. To answer the following: > (5) For users deprived of access to any version at all, all of these points are utter trivia. This is true for some users, not all users. Some users do not find these points trivial. > Not content with Green compared to what? Nothing? Faculty/researchers/scholars are sometimes not content with the Green OA version compared to the version of record/publisher's PDF for the reasons I've already mentioned. Nathan Hosburgh -----Original Message----- 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