<div dir="ltr"><div>On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final' manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior, actually, given that the published version purports to justify the difference in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though by definition limited, of course – is that the difference between final manuscript and published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond content, there is often a difference in findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that those differences in usability and functionality are much more important than any slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a linguistic nature, not a scientific one). <div>
<br></div><div>So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Just to dispel all doubt, Green OA does not mean embargoed OA. </div><div><br></div><div>The ID/OA (immediate-deposit, optional-access) mandate (Liège/HEFCE model) is just a compromise strategy, to make it possible for all institutions and funders to adopt an effective, harmonized mandate that is immune to publisher embargoes. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The length of the allowable OA embargo thus becomes a separate matter. The automated copy-request Button provides Almost-OA during any embargo. And universal mandatory ID/OA + the Button hasten the inevitable transitition to immediate-OA (and then Fair Gold and CC-BY).</div>
<div><br></div><div>If publishers provided immediate read-only access, that would be very nice -- but it would not diminish the need nor the momentum for immediate Green OA (just as publishers providing delayed Gold after a year will not diminish the need or the momentum for immediate Green OA).</div>
<div><br></div><div>It does not take a great deal of thought to realize that if access-denial is a problem for research, then immediate access is the solution, not access-delay. That is not a definitional matter. It is common sense.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And no matter how hard one tries to cite Holy Writ (BOAI 2002) by way of justification, besides the definition of OA having subsequently been refined, it is also a matter of common sense that Gratis OA (free online access) is a component of Libre OA (free online access + re-use rights) and already within reach of institutional and funder Green Gratis OA mandates (but not yet grasped), beginning with ID/OA . </div>
<div><br></div><div>So over-reaching for Libre instead of grasping Gratis is not the way to get either of them.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Not quite the same as true open access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access). </div>
<div><br></div><div>I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open access while keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing here would take away at least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented nature of 'green'). It should not hurt the publisher more than free access to the accepted final manuscript in repositories does, which they seem to accept.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open access to fully functional versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't need this compromise, and are to be preferred.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Some more thoughts on this here: <a href="http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html" target="_blank">http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html</a></div><div><br>
</div><div>Jan Velterop</div><div><br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica">Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
</span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica"><b>Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)</b><br>
</span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica">20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET<br></span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica"><a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a><br>
</span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>Reply-To: </b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica">Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>><br>
</span></div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">Re: <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/" target="_blank">http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/</a> (Elsevier Take-Down Notice to Harvard) </div>
<div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248);min-height:16px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">
See Exchange on Elsevier Website: <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices" target="_blank">http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices</a></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248);min-height:16px">
<br></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)"><i>December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm</i></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">
<b>Stevan Harnad</b>: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the double-talk and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier authors retain the right to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on their own institutional websites immediately, with no embargo? Just a Yes or No, please… Stevan</div>
<div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248);min-height:16px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">
<i>December 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm</i></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)"><b>Tom Reller</b>: Hello Dr. Harnad. I don’t agree with your characterization of our explanation here, but nevertheless as requested, there is a simple answer to your question – yes. Thank you.</div>
<div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248);min-height:16px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">
<i>December 20, 2013</i></div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Times;color:rgb(64,64,64);background-color:rgb(248,248,248)"><b>Stevan Harnad:</b> Tom, thank you. Then I suggest that the institutions of Elsevier authors ignore the Elsevier take-down notices (and also adopt an immediate-deposit mandate that is immune to all publisher take-down notices by requiring immediate deposit, whether or not access to the immediate-deposit is made immediately OA)… Stevan </div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>