From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:41:18 +0000 In scholarly communication there is no unalterable Law of the Medes and Persians stating that the "version of record" has to be published by a publisher, nor that the attributes of the "version of record" such as peer-review or a citeable link have to be provided by a publisher. Some repositories are already exploring the feasibility of providing such attributes with the author's final version in a repository. Providing an alternative to the publisher's version as a "version of record" on a large enough scale to give users confidence in the system will take several years, but then it has only taken a few years for the volume of open access content to reach critical mass from a very low start. All the process needs is for a few large repositories to start adding a citeable identifier and accurate metadata to the peer-reviewed author's final version on a regular basis, and Collette's readers will soon change their view of the green OA version. The research assessment authorities are now more willing to accept a peer-reviewed repository version, although again such a cultural change does take time to work through long-established practices. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL ________________________________________ From: Collette Mak <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:29:10 -0400 Our users want the official version with page numbers, the headings and mark of the publisher etc. When we've supplied the Green OA links we generally get "I could have gotten that myself, I need the published version." What we may need is education about what that Green OA copy is and, how to properly cite it. Collette Mak Outreach and Scholarly Communications Librarian Hesburgh Libraries University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 e: [log in to unmask]