[GOAL] Re: A provocative exchange

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2013-09-29, at 2:46 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> From: "Hosburgh, Nathan" <nathan.hosburgh at montana.edu>
> 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.

Nathan,

I don't think so at all. 

First of all, Green OA means OA provided by author self-archiving,
on any website, not just IRs (but that point's minor and irrelevant).

What's relevant is the definition of OA, which is free online access
to the peer-reviewed article: That means any draft from the final,
refereed, revised, accepted one onward (i.e., refereed post prints,
not unrefereed preprints).

See the BOAI self-archiving FAQ:
What is an Eprint?

Eprints are the digital texts of peer-reviewed research articles, 
before and after refereeing. Before refereeing and publication, the
draft is called a "preprint." The refereed, accepted final draft
is called a "postprint." (Note that this need not be the publisher's
proprietary PDF version!) Eprints include both preprints and
postprints (as well as any significant drafts in between, and any
postpublication updates). Researchers are encouraged to self-archive 
them all. The OAI tags keep track of all versions. All versions
should contain links to the publisher's official version of record.

> I don't think there would be as much controversy surrounding this
> issue if we were all talking about the final, peer-reviewed draft.

We are. That's what mandates are about. And that's what publisher
Green OA embargoes are about.

> 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.

That's what I said was utterly trivial -- to someone who otherwise has
no access at all. (And that's what OA is about and for: those who have
no subscription access to the refereed postprint.)

> 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

No it doesn't. It says:

green	can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
blue	can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF

Now apart from the silly and superfluous distinction between publishers who
allow only (refereed) postprint self-archiving and publishers who allow both
postprint self-archiving and (unrefereed) preprint self-archiving:

The target of OA is the refereed postprint, hence both SHERPA "green"
and SHERPA "blue" are OA Green.

Moreover, IRs indicate clearly whether an item is refereed or unrefereed.

> 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.  

To repeat: Rick was proposing a Green (no-embargo) journal policy
on OA as a deselection criterion, not percentage of Green OA articles.

> 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".  

An ILL for every click by an institutional user is a pretty pricey 
proposition -- but never mind. We were not talking about toll
access but about open access. That means what the institution
can't or won't pay for, whether via subscriptions, licenses, or
pay-to-view (ILL).

That's what the Green OA postprint is for.

> 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.

What you need to count is not how often authors pay to get
the priced version even when he has access to the Green OA
version, but how often they don't.

This is not about anecdotal incidents, but quotidial (and 
rational) user  practice.

> To answer the following:
> 
>> SH: 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.

How many? (Not how many librarians: how many users!)

>> 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.

But this is about when they cannot afford the publisher's priced version.

Stevan Harnad

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130929/4872b411/attachment.html