<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.1.92">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
This has been the source of a few differences among OA supporters. Let me spell this out byt inserting my variations on Stevan harnad's answers in his text, below.<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
Le dimanche 06 novembre 2011 à 12:51 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011, Allen Kleiman wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
> Is there a difference between 'access to information 'and 'access to the
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
> publishers copy'?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Yes, a lot:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
(1) "Information" can mean any information: published, confidential, public, royalty-seeking, non-royalty-seeking, author give-away, non-author-giveaway.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Indeed. I agree
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
(2) The primary target information of the OA movement is refereed research journal articles, all of which, without exception, are written exclusively for research uptake, usage and impact, not for royalty revenues.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
The primary target information of the OA movement is refereed research results in whatever form, articles, books, etc. They are written for research uptake, and even though some research monographs may entail symbolic royalties, they are not published for this reason. As a result, they should not be distinguished from the rest, especially because they constitute the dominant symbolic currency of the humanities and the social sciences. The OA movement also deals with the humanities and the social sciences.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
(3) The restrictions (embargoes) that publishers place on OA self-archiving of the author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft are far fewer than the restrictions on the publisher's version-or-record. (The publishers of over 60% of journals, including almost all the top journals in each field, already endorse OA self-archiving of the author's final draft -- but not the publisher's version-of-record -- immediately upon publication. These are called "green" publishers, and OA self-archiving is called "green OA.")<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I agree for journals, particularly STM journals. The situation is not so rosily green (!!!) in the humanities and social sciences, and it is far worse in the case of monographs.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The OA movement is not -- and cannot be -- the movement for open access to all "information."<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I agree
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
It is the movement for open access to refereed research journal articles.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Refereed research results. This is important to avoid discriminating against the humanities and the social sciences, once again.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft is the refereed journal article.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with this, but must point out, once more, that the humanities and social sciences do not limit themselves to citing articles; they also quote from these articles, and this requires page numbers. if the version made accessible in a repository is not paginated in the same way as the final, publisher's version, it can be read and cited, but not quoted in the usual manner. This situation creates obstacles to researchers. It can be overcome by either checking the publisher's version, but that is not always possible for economic reasons (the library does not subscribe to this journal), or by citing as well as quoting the repository version, which is what more and more people resort to doing, as could have been anticipated. This in turn means that the version in the repository must enjoy stable accessibility and its quality should be guaranteed in some fashion. But this also means that the repository version begins to compete with the publisher,s version. Repositories are beginning to explore these issues, but it will require a collective approach and the establishment of quality standards in repositories to find solutions.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Access to the author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft of a refereed journal article is the difference between night and day for all would-be users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access to the publisher's version of record.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
It is more like the difference between night and early dawn. The "night and day" result happens when only citing is needed. In cases where quoting is also needed, it is more difficult to achieve (hence the dawn, rather the day). In poorer countries, I suspect it is close to being impossible.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
This is why the first and most urgent priority of the OA movement is to ensure that all research institutions and funders mandate (require) the deposit of the author's refereed, corrected, accepted final draft of every refereed journal article in their institutional repository immediately upon publication (with access to the deposit immediately set as Open Access for at least 60% of the deposits from green journals, and the repository's semi-automated "email eprint request" Button providing "Almost OA" to the remaining 40% for individuals requesting access for research purposes.semi-automatically with two key-presses, at the discretion of the author).<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I agree with all of this, but I must point out that in some countries, including the US, the "email eprint request" must be designed very carefully so as not to run afoul of copyright legislation. An automatic sending of the article by the repository simultaneously with the sending of the email request to the author, even though the author may have given a blanket release on his article, may be assimilated to illegal publishing in some jurisdictions, especially if the author has signer all of her rights away to a publisher. The best way is to have a letter go to the author and have the author send directly the article to the person requesting. This will protect the repository from possible litigations.<BR>
<BR>
Jean-Claude Guédon
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Stevan Harnad
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
--
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
<A HREF="http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f">http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>