<div dir="ltr">Video: <b>OA Isn't Rocket Science</b><div><a href="http://timswww.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/video-stevan-harnad-oa-isnt-rocket.html">http://timswww.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/video-stevan-harnad-oa-isnt-rocket.html</a><b><br>
</b></div><div><br></div><div>(On the topic of versions, see <a href="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">here</a>, and the Green OA Self-Archiving FAQ <a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version">#23</a> )</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Graham Triggs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grahamtriggs@gmail.com" target="_blank">grahamtriggs@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 dir="ltr">On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:medium none;padding:0px"><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>(<b>5</b>) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green.</div></div></div></blockquote>
</div></blockquote><div><br>"Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at
the same time publishing another version in a local repository."<br><br>"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."<br><br></div><div>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.<br>
<br></div><div>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.<br>
<br></div><div>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.<br>
<br></div><div>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?<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">G<br></font></span></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>