[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's verison-of-record

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-02-16, at 11:28 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Sally Morris on Liblicence
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:28:18 +0000
> 
> Unless you also provide the date when you read it, people may not know
> whether a correction/retraction/whatever had been appended to the VoR at
> that time?

Date/Version read is helpful, feasible, advisable -- 
but a straightforward matter of scholarly practice 
(which will not be decided on the liblicense Forum!). 

My comments are only about the bearing of the versions 
question on OA and OA mandates. 

In particular:

"Is accessing, quoting and citing the author's refereed, 
revised, accepted final draft good enough for scholars 
and scientists when they are denied access to the 
publisher's version-of-record, because they or their 
institution cannot afford subscription/license/pay-per-view access?"

The answer is a resounding, unambiguous, unequivocal  "YES".

All the rest is irrelevant,  and just equivocation or question-begging.

Stevan Harnad