<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 2013-09-29, at 2:46 PM, LIBLICENSE <<a href="mailto:liblicense@GMAIL.COM">liblicense@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">From: "Hosburgh, Nathan" <<a href="mailto:nathan.hosburgh@montana.edu">nathan.hosburgh@montana.edu</a>><br>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:33:06 -0600<br><br>Stevan,<br><br>If I define Green OA as simply "OA delivered by repositories" (as<br>defined by Peter Suber and others) then it becomes clear that the<br>discrepancies I mentioned are possible. It sounds like you are using<br>a more narrow definition of Green OA as the final, peer-reviewed<br>draft.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Nathan,</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think so at all. </div><div><br></div><div>First of all, Green OA means OA provided by author self-archiving,</div><div>on any website, not just IRs (but that point's minor and irrelevant).</div><div><br></div><div>What's relevant is the definition of OA, which is <i>free online access</i></div><div><i>to the peer-reviewed article:</i> That means any draft from the final,</div><div>refereed, revised, accepted one onward (i.e., refereed post prints,</div><div><i>not </i>unrefereed preprints).</div><div><br></div><div><div>See the <a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint">BOAI self-archiving FAQ</a>:</div><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px; "><div><p style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><b>What is an Eprint?</b></p></div><div>Eprints are the digital texts of peer-reviewed research articles, </div><div>before and after refereeing. Before refereeing and publication, the</div><div>draft is called a "preprint." The refereed, accepted final draft</div><div>is called a "postprint." (Note that this need not be the publisher's</div><div>proprietary PDF version!) Eprints include both preprints and</div><div>postprints (as well as any significant drafts in between, and any</div><div>postpublication updates). Researchers are encouraged to self-archive </div><div>them all. The OAI tags keep track of all versions. All versions</div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px; "><div>should contain links to the publisher's official version of record.</div></blockquote></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">I don't think there would be as much controversy surrounding this<br>issue if we were all talking about the final, peer-reviewed draft.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>We are. That's what mandates are about. And that's what publisher</div><div>Green OA embargoes are about.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Repositories are not uniformly populated with final, peer-reviewed<br>drafts. But, even if they were, this would still leave the issue of<br>further copy editing post peer review.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>That's what I said was utterly trivial -- <i>to someone who otherwise has</i></div><div><i>no access at all</i>. (And that's what OA is about and for: those who have</div><div>no subscription access to the refereed postprint.)</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Even if we are using "green" as designated by SHERPA/RoMEO, this still<br>leaves open the possibility that the repository version is a pre-print<br>(version of the paper before peer review).<br><a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=advanced&version=#colours">http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=advanced&version=#colours</a><br></blockquote><div><br></div>No it doesn't. It says:</div><div><br></div><div><table border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="5" class="results" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; "><tbody><tr><td class="green" style="background-color: rgb(208, 249, 210); font-size: 0.8em; vertical-align: top; "><a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?colour=green&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=advanced&version=" title="View all green publishers" style="color: rgb(101, 61, 150); "><b>green</b></a></td><td style="font-size: 0.8em; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); vertical-align: top; ">can archive pre-print <i>and</i> post-print or publisher's version/PDF</td></tr><tr><td class="blue" style="background-color: rgb(211, 236, 250); font-size: 0.8em; vertical-align: top; "><a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?colour=blue&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=advanced&version=" title="View all blue publishers" style="color: rgb(101, 61, 150); "><b>blue</b></a></td><td style="font-size: 0.8em; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); vertical-align: top; ">can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><br></div><div>Now apart from the silly and superfluous distinction between publishers who</div><div>allow only (refereed) postprint self-archiving and publishers who allow both</div><div>postprint self-archiving and (unrefereed) preprint self-archiving:</div><div><br></div><div>The target of OA is the refereed postprint, hence both SHERPA "green"</div><div>and SHERPA "blue" are OA Green.</div><div><br></div><div>Moreover, IRs indicate clearly whether an item is refereed or unrefereed.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Since we're not living in a homogenous Green OA world, I would not use<br>the availability of Green OA as a deselection criteria as Rick<br>Anderson suggests. </blockquote><div><br></div>To repeat: Rick was proposing a Green (no-embargo) journal policy</div><div>on OA as a deselection criterion, not percentage of Green OA articles.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Having worked in ILL for a number of years, I<br>agree with Chuck Hamaker that "the goal is to provide the version of<br>record of an article as expeditiously as possible, and at the lowest<br>cost possible in the most convenient form". </blockquote><div><br></div>An ILL for every click by an institutional user is a pretty pricey </div><div>proposition -- but never mind. We were not talking about toll</div><div>access but about open access. That means what the institution</div><div>can't or won't pay for, whether via subscriptions, licenses, or</div><div>pay-to-view (ILL).</div><div><br></div><div>That's what the Green OA postprint is for.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">I can say from experience<br>that faculty/researchers/scholars are concerned with getting their<br>hands on the version of record. If they have to pay for it out of<br>their own pocket, they will often do so. I saw this firsthand even<br>when an OA version was available from a repository.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>What you need to count is not how often authors pay to get</div><div>the priced version even when he has access to the Green OA</div><div>version, but <i>how often they don't</i>.</div><div><br></div><div>This is not about anecdotal incidents, but quotidial (and </div><div>rational) user practice.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">To answer the following:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">SH: For users deprived of access to any version at all, all of these points are utter trivia.<br></blockquote><br>This is true for some users, not all users. Some users do not find<br>these points trivial.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>How many? (Not how many librarians: how many users!)</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Not content with Green compared to what? Nothing?<br></blockquote><br>Faculty/researchers/scholars are sometimes not content with the Green<br>OA version compared to the version of record/publisher's PDF for the<br>reasons I've already mentioned.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>But this is about when they cannot afford the publisher's priced version.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br><br>From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:24:29 +0200<br><br>On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM, "Hosburgh, Nathan" wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Pagination is only one way in which a Green OA article may differ from<br>its version of record. Other examples:<br><br>- incomplete/missing references<br>- missing charts/figures<br>- missing/revised content b/n versions due to peer review & editing<br>- etc.<br></blockquote><br>(1) We are talking about the final, peer-reviewed draft (so the PR is<br>done, and in).<br><br>(2) What missing references, charts, figures?<br><br>(3) Citations are to the published version, full bibliographic data,<br>page-spans, etc.<br><br>(4) Quotes can be cited giving section heading and paragraph number.<br><br>(5) For users deprived of access to any version at all, all of these<br>points are utter trivia.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I'm not saying this is the case with all/most Green OA articles, but<br>there is certainly the potential for these discrepancies. So, I think<br>Sandy is right that some faculty/scholars/researchers will not be<br>content with a Green OA version. Green OA relies to some extent on<br>the depositors (whether researchers or repository admins) to ensure<br>that the archival version is useful.<br></blockquote><br>Not content with Green compared to what? Nothing?<br><br>And it is authors who will not be content unless their green version<br>contains all it needs to contain.<br><br>Stevan Harnad<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>