[GOAL] Re: Speech by Dutch junior minister in Berlin

[Stevan Harnad]

Video: *OA Isn't Rocket Science*
http://timswww.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/video-stevan-harnad-oa-isnt-rocket.html

(On the topic of versions, see
here<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=versions+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>,
and the Green OA Self-Archiving FAQ
#23<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version>
 )


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  (*5*) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal
>> articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green.
>>
>>
> "Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at the
> same time publishing another version in a local repository."
>
> "What's more, the quality of the publications is also unclear: especially
> for users outside the scientific world, it will be hard to discern the
> status of quality insurance of all these local repositories."
>
> I guess you can take that any way you want, but I don't see any statement
> about articles in repositories not being peer-reviewed.
>
> What there is, is a question mark about what the version in the repository
> actually represents - it could be the publisher's version, it could be the
> author's copy following peer-review, it could be a version before any
> peer-review changes were made.
>
> Apart from the publisher's PDF, you've probably only got an
> author-provided statement as to what the version is, if that. What
> editorial / review processes has the repository gone through? There are
> certainly repositories out there that do not review at all the author
> submission, and act later to remove content that shouldn't have been posted
> if they are alerted to it.
>
> Publisher's will check to see if an author has posted a version they were
> not entitled to, but if the posting doesn't breach copyright, who is
> checking that it has been clearly and correctly described?
>
> So, what Dekker says is not "the Green article may not be peer-reviewed",
> but asks "how do we know that it represents the peer-reviewed material".
> When repositories do not make it clear to people downloading papers what
> process of review the deposit went through, that's not an unreasonable
> question to ask.
>
> G
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20140130/276cdec4/attachment.html