<div dir="ltr">There are two separate issues here. <br><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 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></blockquote><div> </div><div>In many cases publishers seriously detract from the quality of a publication. Reformatting can destroy readability - I have fought one major chemical publisher who reformatted computer code as proportional font and refused to change and even when we corrected the proofs they changed it back because it wasn't house style. By coincidence I heard a tale at lunch where a publishers had changed the units in a diagram "to make them consistent". The diagram now has Resistance (Gigahertz). Even a non-scientist knows that Hertz is frequency and Ohm is resistance but the technical editors didn't. Turning vector diagrams (EPS) into bitmaps - very common - makes me cringe. <br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></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? 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><br clear="all"></div></blockquote><div>No, Jan, PLEASE NOT.<br><br></div><div>Publishers would love to be able to offer an "enhanced version of XML" for which they could charge more ("added value"). I have asserted "The Right to Read is the Right to Mine" and a number of organizations (e.g. BL, JISC, Wellcome, OKFN, Ubiquity, etc. ) have argued in Brussels for the right to carry out TDM on material they have the right to read. The TA publishers fought this, we walked out, and Neelie Kroes has declared we should start afresh and have a different non-licence approach. <br>
<br></div><div>P.<br><br></div><div><br></div></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069
</div></div></div></div>